Blog Archives

“What do you think of usury—what do you think of murder?” Cato, Roman Statesman, 234-149 B.C.

As we suggested in the previous article, capitalism makes usury not only sophistically alluring for the rich and powerful, but makes it legitimate, and for this purpose it has received widespread criticism.[1]

Capitalism is not just “wealth” or economic exchange in the free market. Soon or later usury is going to sneak in—the exclusion of ethical or moral values in the pursuit of usurious contracts.

As Israel Shamir rightly puts it:

“A capitalist may wish to sell drinking water, but Mammon wants to poison all water in order to force everybody to buy drinking water. A capitalist may build the mall; Mammon wants to destroy the world outside the mall, for the outside world interferes with the only meaningful occupation, shopping…

“Mammon will try to eliminate every distraction to shopping, be it churches, art, forest, rivers, seaside, fresh air, mountains.”[2]

Usury, at its eventual root, is essentially Mammon, and it will destroy whatever interferes with its ideological and economic goal. If destroying the lives of others will bring economic gains, then Mammon will pursue it, no matter how painful the outcome.

And this is where our study gets very interesting because political economy is essentially moral philosophy;[3] in the process, the particular oligarch is going to have to choose whether he wants to cheat the system or not.[4]

If he chooses to cheat the system, inexorably he is going to have to destroy the economic lives of others and ultimately suspend family formation.[5] If he chooses to cheat the system and sophistically suppress the poor, then he has to promote capitalism under the guise of economic exchange.

It must be noted in passing that Adam Smith was not an economist but a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, which had a colony of Whig oligarchy. Similarly, Israeli intellectuals like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who ended up receiving a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics in 2002, were not trained in economics.[6]

Christ told his followers that they cannot serve both God and Mammon at the same time precisely because God is in the business of giving life and abetting the lives of other creatures, namely the poor and needy.

Mammon, on the other hand, is in the business of destroying life sophistically and making people miserable. As a corollary, the love of Mammon will create the most evil act ever conceived. For this reason, the Apostle Paul declared thousands of years ago that “the love of money is the root of all evil.”

————————————————–

Destroying life in a crude way is of course not acceptable in our society. For example, in 2008 some thieves walked into Harry Winston, Inc., and netted $18.6 million worth of jewels in Paris. The police force did indeed try to pursue investigation precisely because it was a crude criminal activity.[7]

But what if those thieves did use a sophisticated way of stealing? What if they were as deceitful and cunning as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan? What if they used advertising so that Harry Winston, Inc., would give them the jewelries of their own free will? Would the police be running after them if they actually use public relations in order to steal those jewelries?

As we shall see, the answer is no. Once again, what we are seeing here is that economics is essentially moral philosophy.

William Deresiewicz of the New York Times, summarizing the avarice and usurious activity of the rich over the past few decades, tells us unapologetically:

“Shafting your workers, hurting your customers, destroying the land. Leaving the public to pick up the tab. These aren’t anomalies; this is how the system works: you get away with what you can and try to weasel out when you get caught.”[8]

Indirectly agreeing with the belief that was popular among Christians for centuries, Deresiewicz moves on to say,

“Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.) Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones.

“Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every man for himself.”[9]

————————————————–

The thieves who stole millions of dollars worth of Jewels in Parris were not intellectually sophisticated. But one individual who actually used propaganda to dominate other people was none other than Edward Bernays, commonly known as “the father of public relations.”[10]

Bernays, whose uncle was none other than Sigmund Freud, wrote in his book Propaganda:

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.”[11]

Although this form of control was widespread in secret societies such as Freemasonry and the Illuminati, although it was hermeneutically regurgitated in Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis,[12] and although it was another version of Carl Jung’s occultism and Aryan cult,[13] Bernays was the first person to formulate it in a way that was conducive to mass propaganda. And sex advertising in the 1970s was no exception.[14]

By 1996, Christopher Simpson of American University argued that

“At heart modern psychological warfare has been a tool for managing empire, not for settling conflicts in any fundamental sense…In practice modern psychological warfare and propaganda have only rarely offered ‘alternatives’ to violence over the medium-to-long term.

“Instead, they have been an integral part of a strategy and culture whose premise is the rule of the strong at the expense of the weak, where coercion and manipulation pose as ‘communication’ and close off opportunity for other, more genuine, forms of understanding.”[15]

When the twentieth century progressively became “Jewish,”[16] all forms of propaganda, including sex propaganda, became the norm.

————————————————–

But when Bernays began to dominate the masses, Wilhelm Reich, a Jewish revolutionary and an ardent student of Sigmund Freud who got kicked out of Germany during the Nazi era for sexually corrupting the masses, began to corrupt Catholic priests and seminarians.

Reich discovered very quickly that the best way to destroy the spiritual lives of priests and undermine their power is through sexual liberation, most specifically masturbation. Here is what the metaphysician observed:

“Let us return to our little girl. The compulsion to pray disappeared when she was made aware of the origin of her fear; this awareness made it possible for her to masturbate again without feelings of guilt.

“As improbable as this incident may appear, it is pregnant with meaning for sex-economy. It shows how the mystical contagion of our youth could be prevented.”[17]

Mystical contagion? Yes. Reich, like Freud, wanted to subvert the Catholic Church precisely because the Catholic Church has always stood against Jewish revolutionary movements. The Church’s teaching, then, was a problem for Reich. He declared,

“We concur, with the opinion of many researchers that all forms of religious mysticism mean mental darkness and narrow-mindedness…”[18]

“Sex economy” quickly became a weapon which eventually weakened the power of Catholic priests and Seminarians. Reich continued,

“We do not discuss the existence or nonexistence of God, we merely eliminate the sexual repressions and dissolve the infantile ties to the parents.

“The inescapable conclusion of all this is that a clear sexual consciousness and a natural regulation of sexual life must foredoom every form of mysticism; that, in other words, natural sexuality is the arch-enemy of mystical religion.

“By carrying on an anti-sexual fight wherever it can, making it the core of its dogmas and putting it in the foreground of its mass propaganda, the church only attests to the correctness of this interpretation.”[19]

We can say that Reich was indeed energizing the sexual revolution. As E. Michael Jones puts it,

“The crucial political struggle, according to Reich, was over who controlled sexual mores because Reich understood, like Nietzsche and Euripides before him, that he who controls sex controls the state.”[20]

Reich again put it quite bluntly:

“The uncovering of the sex-economic processes, which nourish religious mysticism, will lead sooner or later to its practical elimination, no matter how often the mystics run for tar and feathers. Sexual consciousness and mystical sentiments cannot coexist.”[21]

One individual who got infected by Reich’s sexual virus was Lisa Palac, who was raised Catholic. Reich revolutionized pop culture, and pop culture

“glued me [Palac] to my friends, expanded my vocabulary and, of course, tipped me off to the big world of sexual possibilities.”[22]

Palac was far from alone. “Sex economy” gradually became “sexual possibilities,” and that too took a life of its own. And by the 1980s and 1990s, much of Catholic universities such as the University of Notre Dame had succumbed to Reich’s virus. Moreover, Catholic priests such as Theodore Hesburgh “used Rockefeller money to fund secret conferences on contraception at the University of Notre Dame from 1962 to 1965…”[23]

E. Michael Jones was fired at St. Mary’s College for opposing abortion. Of all things! Academic freedom, as Jones gradually found out, did not mean that you give reason for your belief with evidentiary foundation; academic freedom meant sexual liberation—and opposing sexual liberation meant were either a bigot or an idiot or even both.

For example, several members of the school posted pro-choice flyers on their door; Jones, in turn, posed a pro-life flying on his door. But the chairman and others thought that it was Jones who was the bigot! After one year at St. Mary’s College, they kicked Jones out.

Michael W. Cuneo of Fordham University has made fun of what he sees as “graphic [sexual] expose of wrongdoing in the American church” in Jones’ writing. He moves on to say that “Jones has wasted few opportunities in driving it home.”[24]

Yet more than ten years later, Jones was right. Many priests and members in the Church are still locked up in Freudian-Reichian sexual manipulation.[25] And as Euripides noted, no country can survive when sexual liberation is unleashed.

And no religious institution can maintain its spiritual or political power when Reich’s “sex economy” has become a problem in the Church.[26]

Cuneo literally mocked Jones for writing about the Freudian/Reichian sexual drive that has become a spiritual and infectious disease among many priests and seminarians. He writes that “Civility and decorum…are qualities notably absent from the work of E. Michael Jones…”[27]

But Cuneo is also the author of the recent book One Last Kiss: The True Story of a Minister’s Bodyguard, His Beautiful Mistress, and a Brutal Triple Homicide—a grim picture of a series of unfortunate events that ended up in sexual murder!

Why hasn’t Cuneo wasted any opportunity in driving this point home? I am sure Jones is having a good laugh over Cuneo’s book.

After Jones was kicked out of St. Mary’s, he intended to tell his story for a magazine called The Wanderer. The president of the college was mobilized and asked that he, the president, review the articles before publication.

Jones said no because that would infringe upon the truth. The president replied, “Truth—Bullshit! Truth—Bullshit! Truth—Bullshit!” Jones never searched for an academic career after that incident, but started a magazine that “would be fully capable of telling the difference between truth and bullshit.”[28]

————————————————–

It must also be emphasized that political Catholics were subverted by the neoconservative dream. Many of them ended up in neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute.

Others ended up writing for neoconservative magazines such as National Review, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, etc. Michael Novak and Rick Santorum are classic examples.

Since 1978, Novak in particular has been promoting the neoconservative ideology to naïve Catholics and thereby deconstructing the Church’s teachings on things like Capitalism, with its vampire teeth called usury.

Novak implicitly declared that economics is based on prior assumptions, i.e. moral philosophy:

“[P]olitics is prior to economics. Before you can have a dynamic economy, you have to have a system of laws based upon consent from the governed.”[29]

What Novak did not want to say was that that “system of laws” is the old usurious contract that has been ravaging mankind for centuries.

————————————————–

What we are saying here is that Capitalism, like Marxism and Socialism, will eventually destroy nations. One anthropologist and historian who has studied this issue from the early centuries likened modern capitalism to “a structure designed to eliminate all moral imperatives but profit.”[30]

Sombart predicted that capitalism would eventually be pursued largely by Jewish intellectuals and businessmen, ultimately leading to the decline of culture. All we have to do is to read the newspaper to see whether Sombart was right or not. What did we learn from Goldman Sachs again?

“From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they’re about to do it again.”[32]

Does the “vampire squid” really want to help their clients? Here is again the assessment of Greg Smith, a Jew who worked for the company as vice president for twelve years but became disillusioned with their covert activities. Smith argues that Goldman Sachs wants to persuade you, the client,

“to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit…Get your clients—some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t—to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them.

“I attend derivative sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them.

“If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all. It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months Ihave seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as ‘muppets,’ sometimes over internal e-mail.”[33]

————————————————–

Intellectual historian Richard Wolin condemns Sombart for linking American capitalism with the Jewish spirit and declares that “for the fascist intelligentsia during the 1930s, such associations would become commonplace.”[34]

Jewish historian Walter Laqueur declares that Sombart had a skewed view of Jewish history and faults Sombart for not talking about “the entrepreneurs who had been instrumental in developing the American economy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”[35]

Yuri Slezkine indicts that since “Jews excelled under capitalism,” then “Sombart did not like the Jews,”[36] leaving the impression that somehow Sombart was an anti-Semite.

Both Wolin and Laqueur need to pick up a copy of Jerry Z. Muller’s book, Capitalism and the Jews, in which we read in the very first page and the very first sentence: “Capitalism has been the most important force in shaping the fate of the Jews in the modern world.”[37]

The third sentence reads: “But Jews have had a special relationship with capitalism, for they have been particularly good at it.”[38]

Muller, himself a Jewish scholar, continues to say,“Jews have been a conspicuous presence in the history of capitalism, both as a symbol and as reality.”[39]

Muller goes on to cite Milton Friedman, who argued that capitalism has been good for the Jews.[40] Are Wolin and Laqueur willing to shoot themselves in the toes by saying that Muller and Friedman are anti-Semites? If not, why would they accuse Sombart of anti-Semitism?

Moreover, why would Sombart spend time talking about the twentieth century when his book came out in 1911? What is so interesting and laughable is that Muller himself was more than willing to commit intellectual promiscuity by lumping Sombart with anti-Semitism. He writes:

“Sombart’s identification of the Jews with the elements of capitalism that he most deplored provided a scholarly patina for what was already one of the most frequent motifs of anti-Semites…who held the Jews responsible for everything they despised about capitalism and the modern world.”[41]

Didn’t Muller cite Friedman early saying that capitalism has been good for the Jews?

In another publication, Muller again contradicted himself when he declared that anti-Semitism is rooted in the gospels and in Christian churches during the early centuries.[42] Jewish men like Georg Lukacs played an influential role in the 1917-1919 revolutions; for Muller, they did not consider themselves as Jewish but the anti-Semites continued to arrive at the conclusion that they were indeed Jewish.

Moreover, when eyewitness accounts documented the Jewish participation of the Hungarian Soviet, even giving descriptions of how “Christian professors” were replaced by “young Jewish intellectuals” in the revolt, Muller called the details “somewhat fanciful,” leaving the impression that reaction to Jewish participation in revolutionary activity has nothing to do with the Jewish revolutionaries themselves.

Muller moved on to dismiss all of this by saying,

“A clear-eyed analyst would have concluded that although Jews were conspicuously overrepresented in leadership positions, few Jews were communists, and most communists were not Jews.”[43]

If these ideas are true, then we might as well shut down the police department and all other government agencies which seek to draw connections between crimes, ethnicity, and criminal activity. All three elements play a vital role in forensic investigation.[44]

On what grounds, then, should historians, scholars, and people of reason suspend this method when it comes to examining Jewish participation in subversive activity?

Should we apply the method everywhere—even when examining terrorism in the Muslim world, when examining crimes in the black community—but ignore it when it comes to Jewish participation in revolutionary activity?

Moreover, is it rationally sound to quickly conclude that a person who does name names is by definition an anti-Semite?

There is certainly a logical breakdown here that can hardly be ignored. Gathering evidence and drawing logical conclusions from it is a logical step that cannot be dismissed with cheap shots.

Sombart quotes Marx frequently, who in his essay “On the Question of the Jews” wrote,

“What is the worldly basis of Jewdom? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Bargaining. What is his worldly god? Money.”[45]

For Sombart to connect Jewish participation with capitalism would have been a problem had he provided no evidentiary foundation. Yet Sombart spent page after page laying out the historical backdrop, naming Jewish figures in the nineteenth century who had an influential role in colonial enterprise in South Africa and Australia.

Sombart, as a German economist and sociologist, was well aware of the scholarly literature in that particular field and cited many other scholars who assert the same thing. Moreover, Sombart’s analysis was not all negative, for he declared that

“it was the scientific knowledge of Jewish scholars which so perfected the art of navigation that voyages across the ocean became at all possible. Abraham Zacuto, Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University of Salamanca, completed his astronomical tables and diagrams, the Almanach perpetuum, in 1473.

“On the basis of these tables two other Jews, Jose Vecuho, who was court astronomer and physician to John II of Portugal, and one Moses the Mathematician (in collaboration with two Christian scholars), discovered the nautical astrolabe, an instrument by which it became possible to measure from the altitude of the sun the distance of a ship from the Equator…

“The scientific facts which prepared the way for the voyage of Columbus were thus supplied by Jews.”[46]

It is therefore irresponsible to say that Sombart’s book displays flashes of anti-Semitism for the same reason a person does not display anti-Americanism for criticizing American policies or Bush or Obama or any other president.

————————————————–

If Wolin, Laqueur and Muller want us to take them seriously on the Jewish question, they need to tell Jewish revolutionaries to stay away from crimes and covert activities.

Moreover, they need to tell the Zionist regime and Israeli-run NSA (USA) and the GCHQ (UK) to stop manipulating virtually the entire world.[47] The best way to prove that you are not a murderer in court is for you to stay away from committing murder.

We have already seen how companies such as Goldman Sachs cheated clients in order to build their earthly kingdom of Mammon. Jewish economist Lawrence Dudlow admits,

“The heart of the business situation is always the outlook for profits. When the combination of rising costs and falling inflation squeezes profits, then production and employment must be cut back.”[48]

Darwin indirectly gave the intellectual elite a sophisticated tool to propagate capitalism. Michael Shermer himself writes that “Darwin scholars largely agree that he modeled his theory of natural selection after [Adam] Smith theory of the invisible hand.”[49]

There is a certain level of symbiotic relationship between usury and natural selection. We are told that given enough time, natural selection has enough power to create something new.

Through natural selection and long periods of time, magical things can happen: dinosaurs can morph into birds, cows can evolve to whales, etc.

With usury, the same magical thing is possible: given enough time, 30 pieces of silver can gradually become trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Andrew Carnegie understood that magical principle quite well. Carnegie was indeed a classic representative of the Protestant capitalist who dropped his Calvinist background when he discovered Darwin. Once “the tenets of Calvinist orthodoxy” was discarded, Carnegie had nothing left to hang on. He wrote,

“At this period of my life I was all at sea. No creed, no system reached me. All was chaos. I had outgrown the old and found no substitute.”[50]

When he first read Darwin’s ideas, the religious scales fell from his eyes. He declared,

“Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. ‘ALL is well since all grows better’ became my motto, my true source of comfort.”[51]

The new savior, then, was Darwin. But Carnegie was also “obsessed” with Hebert Spencer,[52] the man who actually coined the termed “survival of the fittest.” Biographer David Nasaw writes,

“For the rest of Spencer’s life, Carnegie referred to him in his writings and lectures, sought him out when he visited London, and showered him with letters and gifts…

“What counted most for Carnegie was not simply that Spencer had decreed that evolutionary progress was inevitable and industrial society an improvement on its forbears, but that this progress was moral as well as material.”[53]

For Carnegie, Darwin’s principle and Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” were like immutable physics and mathematics, and you tamper with them at your own peril. Nasaw continues,

“There was, for Spencer, a discernable order to the course of human events and the structure of human societies, study of which would reveal the existence of moral laws that were ‘like the other laws of the universe—sure, inflexible, ever active, and having no exceptions.’ Societies that obeyed these moral laws would prosper; those that disregarded them were doomed to failure.”[54]

Carnegie would often refer to Spencer as “my teacher,” “My Master,” and on some occasions ended his letters with kind words such as “to you reverence.”[55] Nasaw continues to say,

“The law of evolution provided a systematic way of answering [Carnegie’s] questions and explaining, without recourse to the supernatural…It provided a scientific basis for a belief in human progress.”[56]

————————————————–

Nasaw writes that “Spencer offered Carnegie and his generation an intellectual foundation for their optimism,”[57] and after reading Spencer, Carnegie exclaimed, “Man was not created with an instinct for his own degradation, but from the lower he had risen to the higher forms. Nor is there any conceivable end to his march to perfection.”[58]

Henry Adams, Carnegie’s contemporary, felt almost the same way. He wrote that “for the young men whose lives were cast in the generation between 1867 and 1900, Law should be evolution from lower to higher, aggregation of the atom in the mass, concentration of multiplicity in unity, compulsion of anarchy in order.”[59] Nasaw comments,

“Whether they read Spencer for themselves, as Carnegie had, or absorbed his teachings secondhand, his evolutionary philosophy provided the Gilded Age multimillionaires with a framework for rationalizing and justifying their outsized material success.

“In the Spencerian universe, Carnegie and his fellow millionaires were agents of progress who were contributing to the forward march of history into the industrial epoch. Carnegie was not exaggerating when he proclaimed himself a disciple of Spencer and referred to him, in almost idolatrous terms, as his master, his teacher, one of ‘our greatest benefactors,’ and the “great thinker of our age.’”[60]

But Spencer’s intellectual foundation was based primarily on “survival of the fittest,” which was congruent with usury.

But sophisticated form of usury does not eliminate the fact that the idea is evil and destructive. Even people such as Thorstein Veblen, who also wanted to apply the Darwinian ideology to economics, saw problems with it, calling it “the legal right to sabotage.”

The idea is that the rich and the powerful can ultimately stop “the free flow of economic activity in order to maintain the maximum net gain for invested capital.”[61]

Veblen saw that when the “industrial forces” run the country, they can manipulate the economy as they see fit and in the end it will “be ruinous for business.”[62]

————————————————–

All of this economic mumbo jumbo was expected, since the leading figures of the Protestant movement made usury plausible. In fact, Darwin, Spencer, Carnegie, and more recently Michael Shermer, were all Protestants at one time. (Carnegie wooed Protestant writer Matthew Arnold into his capitalist circle.) And they all came up with a secular version of the Protestant form usury. Adam Smith himself bragged,

“Our forefathers kicked out the Pope and the Pretender [to] preserve the precious right of private judgment.”[63]

It was logical that generational children of the Whig oligarchs would implicitly be in agreement with Jewish revolutionaries to destroy “the Pretender” who traditionally condemned usury in all its form.

In fact, the WASP ruling classing—namely the Rockefellers—made a deal with the Rothschilds back in 2012. David Rockefeller himself acknowledged,

“Lord Rothschild and I have known each other for five decades. The connection between our two families remains very strong. I am delighted to welcome Jacob and RIT as shareholders and partners in the ongoing development of our investment management and wealth advisory businesses.”[64]

In a nutshell, the secularized and “scientific” version of usury (Darwin’s survival of the fittest) and the Protestant/Whig version of usury (Smith’s “invisible hand”) are ultimately two sides of the same coin, though there might be some slight variations here and there.

Darwin’s survival of the fittest had its heyday at the dawn of the twentieth century, during which it horridly massacred the poor, the needy and the powerless.[65]

But when the twentieth century completely became “Jewish,” to use Yuri Slezkine’s own word, the Darwinian/Whig coin ended up landing in the Jewish rabbit whole.

Amos Tversky himself started to think about economic theory through survival of the fittest. He declared that “growing up in a country that’s fighting for survival, you’re perhaps more likely to think simultaneously about applied and theoretical problems.”[66]

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are other classic examples of the marriage or similarities between survival in the fittest and Jewish ideology. The net result is that both ended up slaughtering decent and innocent human beings.

Those human beings are still being liquidated in places like Iraq and Afghanistan; others are fleeing from their cherished homes.[67]

Moreover, the Jewish ideology is currently destroying other nations such as Syria.[68] It has already taken the lives of at least 73,000 in 2013 alone.[69] The same ideology is marching against Iran.[70]

Put simply, the WASP ruling class (with its secularized version) and Jewish economists will never be able to repudiate the usurious coin because, to parody the biological determinists, the usurious coin is in their DNA. How else? Didn’t their intellectual antecedents propound the same thing?[71] Didn’t Calvin and Luther produced sophisticated reasons for usurious contracts?

Dante would be pleased to put that usurious coin in hell.

————————————————–

Last year, Pope Francis made the declaration that “unfettered capitalism” is the “new tyranny” on the block. This “idolatry of money” has been dignified by the intellectual elite and been blessed by the rich and powerful. He continued,

“Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?

“I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security.

“I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor.”[72]

Pope Francis has been weak on many issues, but he definitely has a point here. The capitalist elite, building on the false dichotomy that you are either a Marxist/Socialist or a capitalist, and ignoring the traditional teaching of the Church that monks and priests and even nuns always value labor, immediately called Pope Francis a Marxist, even though he has made it clearly that “the ideology of Marxism is wrong.”[73]

Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, wrote that the pope has a “tragic vision.”[74]

Being trapped in the perennial “either/or” dichotomy (Marxism/Socialism vs. Capitalism), Williams wrote articles such as “The Virtue of Greed” and “I Love Greed,” in which we read:

“YOU CAN CALL IT GREED, selfishness or enlightened self-interest, but the bottom line is that it’s these human motivations that get wonderful things done. Unfortunately, many people are naive enough to believe that it’s compassion, concern and ‘feeling another’s pain’ that’s the superior human motivation. As such, we fall easy prey to charlatans, quacks and hustlers.

“There’s probably widespread agreement that it’s a wonderful thing that most of us own cars. Is there anyone who believes that the reason we have cars is because Detroit assembly-line workers care about us?”[75]

Obviously Williams knew nothing about the Middle Ages, where compassion and love for the poor, the needy, and real labor actually built Western Civilization, including the most prestigious institutions in the West.[76] He obviously does not know that there is a rigorous alternative to Capitalism.[77]

Williams continues to propound his ignorance at an astronomical rate:

“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. With the rise of capitalism, it became possible to amass great wealth by serving and pleasing your fellow man.”[78]

Serving and pleasing your fellow man? What in the world is Williams talking about? Please notice that Williams blatantly contradicts himself by making such a categorically false statement.

If car makers really do not care about us and that their primary motive is to make money, as Williams argues, could it be that this primary goal might be in conflict with “serving and pleasing” fellow men? If you doubt the seriousness of this statement, watch how Milton Friedman addressed a similar issue.[79]

Moreover, has Williams taken a look at what economist John Quiggin calls “Zombie Economics”?[80] Has he read Paul Craig Roberts’ recent book The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism?[81] And has he read the recent news about JPMorgan?[82]

What was so laughable was that instead of arresting the representatives of JPMorgan and putting them to jail for “bribery, mortgage fraud, investor fraud, credit card fraud, forgery, perjury, violation of sanctions against Iran and Syria,”[83] etc., the government just asked them to pay some fines! The BBC reported that “No individual executives were accused of wrongdoing.”[84] As Eric Eskow puts it,

“We’ve always been told that ‘crime doesn’t pay.’ Jamie Dimon and the Board of Directors of JPMorgan Chase beg to differ.”[85]

In the same vein, Andrew S. Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle writes,

“No matter how egregious and systematic the malfeasance, no matter how many lives have been ruined, no matter how loud the calls for accountability, the big chiefs remain untouched. In Jamie Dimon’s case, they get rewarded…

“Forgotten, it seems, is the list of JPMorgan’s crimes and misdemeanors on Dimon’s watch – mortgage fraud, insurance fraud, illegal billing, kickbacks, manipulating California’s energy market, rigging the Libor benchmark interest rate, turning a blind eye to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme; and who can forget the London Whale? Isn’t another price in order?”[86]

————————————————–

Rush Limbaugh, a quintessential representative of the capitalist system, declared of Pope Francis,

“But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him. This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth

Martin Luther, as we have already seen in the previous article, was a man whose distinctive theological cast on essential issues was unquestionably planted in blatant contradictions. In fact, blatant contradictions have existed in alljudaizing movements.

Secular and philo-Semitic historian Will Durant himself declared that when people began judaizing, “the Old Testament overshadowed the New” and the teachings of Christ had to be subservient to Old Testament laws.[1]

Any judaizing movement, by definition, has to absorb many of the nullified laws of the Old Testament. In our own time, Sarah Palin for example frequently invoked passages in the Old Testament to pursue her political ends.[2]

Michelle Bachmann did the same thing in 2011. When she was obviously outmatched and losing support in Iowa, she didn’t invoke Christ or figures in the New Testament, but turned to Old Testament figures.[3]

Let us here from the horse’s mouth:

“I want to call to mind in remembrance a hero of mine. And he’s from ancient Israel. And from history we know, in the recorded annals of time, that this was someone considered more inconsequential, but to me he had an inspiring, powerful story.

“His name was Jonathan. And it was in ancient Israel. His father was king. He was the first king of ancient Israel and his name was King Saul.

“And there was another battle that Israel faced. And that battle was with a group of people called the Philistines. And the Philistines had a position of power. And they were up on a cliff during the time of this battle…

Minnesota Post, by Corey Anderson

“King Saul looked up on the cliff and he saw that the Philistines far outnumbered the Israelites. And that they were far better equipped and had every possible advantage that they could have against Israel.

“And so the king pulled back. And the king saw that because of the great advantage that the Philistines had, he waited. He was paralyzed with fear. And he saw certain defeat for Israel.

“But not so his son Jonathan. Jonathan made a secret pact with his armor bearer. And Jonathan turned to his armor bearer. And as he enlisted that support, he turned to that armor bearer. ‘Let’s climb to the top of the outpost where the Philistines stand.’

“And so Jonathan turned to his compatriot, the armor bearer, and he said these words: ‘Come then, we will cross over toward the men and let them see us. If they say to us: ‘Wait there until we come to you,’ we will stay and not go up to them. But if they say ‘Come up to us,’ we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the Lord has given them into our hands.’

“So what did the armor bearer reply? The reply of the armor bearer was one of loyalty and trust. And the armor bearer said this: ‘Go ahead, I am with you, heart and soul.’ And so they climbed.

“And Jonathan and the armor bearer not only defeated the Philistines who were at the outpost, Jonathan and the armor bearer defeated the entire Philistine army.

“It’s all because two men had courage. And they scaled the cliffs. And they took the enemy. And they won the day.

“And it’s my opinion that at this moment in American history, the people of this great nation have that courage and they are longing for a president who will listen to them, and who will lead from the front and not from behind, and who will stand with them and take the cliffs of the problems that we have in this country today.”[4]

In short, for Bachmann, the Old Testament was or perhaps still is the key to understanding her political ideology. She continued,

“And I like to think that the women of Issachar too knew what to do. Now, thousands of years later, it is my generation’s turn to do our part to rebuild the foundation, to reestablish the framework, to help repair the walls.

“After all, in the time of the Twelve Tribes and in the present time, we worship the same eternal and unchangeable God. My struggle to change those destructive government policies would ultimately bring me into politics.”[5]

But in order for Bachmann to get into politics, she had to go through the Zionist conversion or reconfirmation, which happened when she went to Israel, and which she later described as

“a moving memorable experience…So while the Israel of the ancient world gave us the living foundation of the Christian faith, the Israel of today is a valued and valuable ally to the United States. And for me, many decades later, it is a privilege to show my support in Congress for a strong and sovereign Israel.”[6]

————————————————–

Luther’s Reformation, as we shall see here, was not exempt from the judaizing spirit.

At the dawn of his movement, Luther reversed the traditional teachings of the Church on the Jews by misrepresenting it; building on a straw man, he moved on to attack it relentlessly. Speaking against the Church, he wrote in his essay That Jesus Was Born a Jew,

“If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings.

“They have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and mockery.

Luther moved on to say that

“If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles.”[7]

Obviously Dr. Luther did not care to include the Apostle Paul’s statement on the Jews in his analysis.

Paul (a Pharisee of the highest order[8]), who himself was an ethnic Jew persecuting Christians before his conversion,[9] and who on many occasions implicitly declared that he is “an Aramaic-speaking Jew who inherited the language from his parents,”[10] says that the Jews

“killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us. They please not God and are contrary to all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:15).

And Luther, here and elsewhere, did not provide an exegetical study on the New Testament with respect to Christ and the Jewish people. He failed to mention that Christ “came unto his own [meaning the Jews], and his own received him not” (John 1:11).

The Apostle Peter proceeds to say that “let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). When the Jews heard this, “they were pricked in their heart” and repented.

Finally, Stephen made things less complicated when he told the Jews, “Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan” (Acts 7:2).

The Jews, of course, did not listen, and ended up stoning Stephen because he had become a Christian.

Oswald Rufeisen

Here we must emphasize perhaps for the last time that in the first and second centuries, the issue was not and has never been racial but theological largely because the protagonists and antagonists were all Semites.

Nothing has changed since then. We’ve noted in a previous article that Israel refused to give Shmuel Oswald Rufeisen (known as Brother Daniel) citizenship because he had converted to Christianity.

Born to Jewish parents during the Nazi era, Rufeisen was a full-blown Zionist in his youth and hid in a monastery in the 1930s. His unpardonable sin was that he betrayed Judaism when he ended up studying for the priesthood.

According to Shlomo Sand, this

“overcame the deterministic biological imaginary. It was categorically decided that there was no Jewish nationality without its religious shell. Ethnocentric Zionism needed the Halakhic precepts as its principal criteria, and the secular judges [in Israel] understood this national-historical necessity as well.”[11]

It is the same thing with Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, a Jewish scholar during the late 1600s who converted to Christianity. Eisenmenger was not an undisciplined scholar—he mastered Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Not only that, he established a strong, friendly relationship with the Talmudic scholars and rabbis of his day, making sure that he did not misrepresent Jewish traditions even though he had been brought up with them.

In 1700, after nineteen years of studying the original languages and literature, Eisenmenger published his monumental work, The Tradition of the Jews. But to this day it is called an anti-Semitic work.

For historian Heinrich Graetz, one of the fathers of modern Jewish historiography, “Eisenmenger belonged to the class of insects which sucks poison even out of flowers.”[12] As such, Graetz said that The Traditions of the Jews is “a venomous book” that has the potential to create a spirit of anti-Semitism.[13] Instead of refuting Eisenmenger’s points, Graetz resorts to name calling.

When Joseph Pfefferkorn became a Christian in the sixteenth century, Graetz called him “the scum of the Jewish people” and a “noisome insect.”[14]

In the first century, Jewish historian Josephus became a fully assimilated Jew, yet Jewish historian Solomon Grayzel says that Josephus, among others things, “betrayed the cause of Jewish independence at the start.”[15]

When Josephus wrote that Titus did not want to destroy the Temple in AD 70, Grayzel retorted that “Josephus always defended Titus before the Jews, and he was not above telling a falsehood when it suited his purpose.”[16]

All of this proves that the central issue can never be understood in racial terms or in the form of DNA. Biological determinists have already presupposed that Jewish determinism is true in their mind and have relentlessly and irrationally forced that weltanschauung upon their own “science,” not upon something that can be observed objectively and independently.

What if the actual science disproves the claim? That is no problem for biological determinists because ideology overshadows everything else. Biological determinists would still propound the same claim ad nauseam without any substance and with little respect for historical and rational inquiry.

In short, for many, ideology is more powerful than science, epistemological pursuit, and scientific inquiry. Science and reason are their friends if and only if science and reason seem to advance their ideological presupposition. As Daniel J. Flynn rightly put it,

“When ideology is your guide, you’re bound to get lost. Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to truth. Truth, however, is not everyone’s intended destination.

“It is quite pedestrian occurrence for stupid people to fall for stupid ideas. More interesting, and of greater harm to society, is the phenomena of smart people falling for stupid ideas. Ph.D.s, high IQs, and intellectual honors are not antidotes to thick-headedness.

“Ideologues forgo independent judgment in favor of having their views handed to them. To succumb to ideology is to put your brain on autopilot. Ideology preordains your reaction to issues, ideas, and people, your view of politics, philosophy, economics, and history.”[17]

Augustine basically said the same thing in the City of God, which was written in the fifth century, right after Rome was invaded by the barbarians in 410.

He wrote that when man “stubbornly resist[s] the plain evidence of logic and truth,” when he consciously or unconsciously pays little attention to rational inference, then “men of sound judgment and adequate powers of exposition would not need to engage in lengthy discussions in order to refute mistakes and fanciful conjectures.” He continues,

“But as things are, the intelligent are infected by a gross mental disorder [another translation says ‘mental infirmity’] which makes them defend the irrational workings of their minds as if they were logic and truth itself, even when the evidence has been put before them as plainly as is humanly possible. Either they are too blind to see what is put before their face, or they are too perversely obstinate to admit what they see.

“And yet, will we ever come to an end of discussion and talk if we think we must always reply to replies? For replies come from those who either cannot understand what is said to them, or are so stubborn and contentious that they refuse to give in even if they do understand….

“You can see how infinitely laborious and fruitless it would be to try to refute every objection they offer, when they have resolved never to think before they speak…”[18]

————————————————–

The stoning of Stephen

Luther propounded one straw man after another and moved on to say that Christians should be reminded that “the Jews are of the lineage of Christ.”

Luther knew better. He knew too well that the contention has always revolved around theological terms, and Luther knew that the Church’s position on the Jews has always been that the Jews cannot be Abraham’s seed by rejecting Christ.

If the issue was racial, the Apostle Paul would not have said things like, “And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 2:28).

But by making such a serious and, perhaps deliberate, mistake at the dawn of his Reformation, Luther was bound to get lost in a torrent of his own theological mismatch. Moreover, Luther, whether he liked it or not, was laying the groundwork for other Protestant movements to muddle the Jewish water. Eminent Protestant scholar Donald M. Lewis writes,

“The evangelicals’ sense of Britishness was being redefined with Philo-Semitism and Christian Zionism being added as the new layers of British identity. Britain as ‘Protestant Israel’ was to protect and defend ‘Israel according to the flesh’ from its ancient persecuting enemy, Roman Catholicism.

“This novel emphasis upon evangelical connectedness to ‘God’s ancient people’ was thus an idea whose time had come in that it vindicated evangelical claims to be authentic ‘apostolic Christianity….’

“By emphasizing their connectedness to the Jews, evangelicals could trump both Roman Catholic and Tractarian historical claims…In this way, both Philo-Semitism and Christian Zionism became key aspects of the identity construction of British evangelicalism by the 1830s.”[19]

More importantly, the Church, in its entire history, has never even remotely suggested that Jews should be physically attacked or treated as non-humans, as Luther implied. With respect to the Inquisition, I would refer readers to historian Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision.[20]

When mobs were persecuting Jews in major parts of Europe, the Jews went to popes for refuge precisely because they knew that the Church would not fail to protect them. This has been consistently documented by historians of various stripes, including Philo-Semitic historians and Jewish scholars.[21]

Jewish historian Salo Baron, who abides by the thesis that Jews are persecuted for what they are and not for what they do, goes so far as to say that

“Had it not been for the Catholic Church, the Jews would not have survived the Middle Ages in Christian Europe.”[22]

Cambridge Jewish historian Israel Abrahams made it clear in his Jewish Life in the Middle Agesthat“Just as the Crusades produced no massacres in Spain or Italy, so it was almost a tradition with the popes of Rome to protect the Jews who were near at hand” and moved on to admit that anti-Jewish attacks, though prevalent in some quarters in Europe during the Middle Ages, “is untrue of Italy.”[23]

Abrahams continued, “The Italian poets were far kinder to the Jews than were the Germans, and the friendship between Dante and his Jewish imitator Immanuel was typical of this gentler attitude of the Italian muse.”[24]

Abrahams then dropped this unpopular statement,

“As a whole, heresy was a reversion to Old Testament and even Jewish ideals. It is indubitable that the heretical doctrines of the Southern-French Algigenses in the beginning of the thirteenth century, as of the Hussites in the fifteenth, were largely the result of friendly intercourse between Christians and educated Jews…The indirect effects of the Protestant Reformation were equally deleterious to the Jews.”[25]

Heinrich Graetz, one of the fathers of modern Jewish historiography, basically said the same thing, moving further to argue that

“Whenever a party in Christendom opposes itself to the ruling church, it assumes a tinge of the Old Testament, not to say Jewish spirit.”[26]

In a similar vein, Rabbi Louis Israel Newman argued that all the opposing parties were schooled in the Old Testament primarily by Jewish revolutionaries, rabbis, and Hebraists.[27]

————————————————–

Since Luther’s Reformation lacked a serious and rigorous theological vision on the Jewish question, it was inevitable that Luther would apply the Old Testament principles in order to punish the Jews.

As soon as Luther discovered that the Jewish question was not as easy as he thought it was, he went on lambasting the Jews like a raving maniac or a mad man. He unequivocally wrote,

“First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.

“For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly, and I myself was unaware of it, will be pardoned by God.

“But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

“In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews…

“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies.

“This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

“For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: ‘what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.’

Philip Melanchthon

“Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy.”

Whatever happened to Luther’s statement that Jews should be treated kindly? Whatever happens to Christ’s teachings? But that is just the icing on the cake. It gets even more interesting. The Jews, Luther said in his disparaging tongue,

“let us work in the sweat of our brow to earn money and property while they sit behind the stove, idle the way the time, fart, and roast pears. They stuff themselves, guzzle, and live in luxury and ease from our hard-earned goods. With their accursed usury they hold us and our property captive.”[28]

Luther, as we will see when we discuss capitalism, was not completely against usury, but here he was complaining that the Jews used usury to usurp the goyim.

Once again, Luther’s theology and analysis on the Jews and the Church were firmly planted in contradiction. A contradiction is, put simply, this: “Nothing be said both to be and not be something at the same time and in the same respect.”[29]

In other words, for two statements to be contradictory, they must say opposite things at the same time, and in the same respect. For example, if a person says Marilyn Manson is a male and another person says Marilyn Manson is a female, then we are confronted with a vital contradiction. A person cannot be a male and a female at the same time and in the same respect.

But if a person says Ted Kaczynski was a skilled terrorist and another person says Ted Kaczynski was an able mathematician, those two statements are not contradictory. A person can be a skilled terrorist and a mathematician at the same time.

If Luther propounds sola scriptura on the one hand and reject books of the Scripture on the other, then we have a vital contradiction that cannot be reconciled. Whether he liked it or not, Luther’s sola scriptura cannot work on a rational point of view.

John Nelson Darby

What Luther and many others ended up doing was that they clung to passages that seem to support their view and dismiss and condemn other passages that disagreed with them.

In the final analysis, a sizable part of the Reformation became a debating society, where leading Reformed scholars ended up in debating ad infinitum their favorite passages which support their views.

As eminent Protestant scholar and prolific writer Alister McGrath writes, the Reformation was much more complex and it cannot be reduced to just the motto of sola scriptura, for “a secondary hermeneutic of political character was at least on occasion instrumental in [its] propagation.”[30]

McGrath continues to say that it is “evident that the question of how the early Reformed theological communities interpreted Scripture was more problematic than is sometimes appreciated.”[31]

It is no accident that many Protestants would follow Luther’s tract in quoting passages of Scripture that support their preconceived ideas and disregard historical, contextual, and exegetical analysis. After all, as we have seen in the previous article, if “Dr. Luther would have it so,” why not thousands of other Dr. Luthers?

Why not Edward Irving, Henry Drummond, and John Nelson Darby in the nineteenth century; why not C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles C. Ryrie and John Walvoord in the twentieth century?[32]

Why not popularizers such as Hal Lindsey, “the self-proclaimed ‘Father of the Modern Prophecy Movement’”[33]? Why not other apocalyptic movements that came into full bloom right after the French Revolution?[34]

How does one adjudicate the theories of those men when all of them claim that they got their views from Scripture and none of them agreed with each other on some of the key points?

Well, it goes back to the infallible thing again. When one individual asked Darby a thought-provoking question during one of his lecture series, he responded, “I am here to supply expositions not brains.”[35]

Darby literally excommunicated George Muller, a fine and genuine Christian gentleman and philanthropist, largely because Muller disagreed with Darby’s eschatology.[36]

It is also no accident that a sizable section of Protestant denominations became national in vision, as opposed to the Catholic Church which isinternational in scope.[37]

Racialist groups, in one sense, could be categorized as secularized versions or unintended consequences of the Reformation or the Protestant movement.[38]

Moreover, it is no accident that the Reformation would split into different divisions and subdivisions—Calvin disagreeing with Luther on essential theological points and vice versa, Phillip Melanchthon (Luther’s protégé and long-time friend) slowly but surely disagreeing with both Luther and Calvin on the role of freewill with respect to salvation, etc.[39] Protestant scholar and historian Gregory Graybill writes that

“Melanchthon’s evangelical free will was a response to Luther in the same manner as Arminius’ doctrine of the will was a response to Calvinism. Arminius and his popularizer John Wesley were not original—they had merely come to similar conclusions within a Reformed milieu as Melanchthon had already done within the Lutheran context.”[40]

What probably got Melanchthon thinking about Luther’s strange exegete was that Luther wanted to reject the book of James altogether from the cannon of Scripture because James, as we have already seen, did not agree with Luther’s sola fide. Melanchthon also saw a serious error in Luther’s view on the will. Nineteenth-century Protestant scholar Philip Schaff declared that

“Melanchthon, on further study and reflection, retreated in the Semi-Pelagian direction, and prepared the way for Arminianism, which arose, independently, in the heart of Calvinism at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

“He abandoned his earlier view, which he characterized as Stoic fatalism, and proposed the Synergistic scheme, which is a compromise between Augustinianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and makes the human will co-operate with preceding divine grace, but disowns human merit.”[41]

The confessions of the Lutheran faith, The formula of Concord (1577), “rejected both Calvinism and Synergism, yet taught, by a logical inconsistency, total disability and unconditional election, as well as universal vocation.”[42]

————————————————–

In the final analysis, Luther basically had two options: he could either reject his own theology or reject James. To reject his own theology, that means Luther would have to reject many of his central doctrines—a huge price to pay. And to accept the book of James while maintaining his own theology, Luther was cognitive enough to realize that there would be a contradiction.

He solved the dichotomy by rejecting James and maintaining his own theology. Now, modern Calvinists keep telling us that “It is not philosophy that leads the Reformed believer to his or her conclusions: it is biblical exegesis that does so.”[43]

Why didn’t that work for the leading light of the Reformation? Why did he have to reject James in order to maintain his own “biblical exegesis”?

Moreover, Luther, instead of thinking these things through as a serious exegete, on many occasions resorted to smearing at individuals who did not abide by his “bondage of the will.” At the beginning of The Bondage of the Will, Luther starts bringing the whole house down by taking on Eramus’ view:

“In this book of mine, therefore, I shall harry you and all the Sophists till you tell me exactly what ‘free-will’ can and does do; and I hope so to harry you (Christ helping me) as to make you repent of ever publishing your Diatribe.”[44]

Calvin got even more extreme in his views. If there is one statement that sums up the central thrust of Calvin’s thinking, it is probably this:

“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.”[45]

This extreme view did not die with Calvin. Schaff declared that Huldrych

George Muller

“Zwingli’s position was peculiar: on the one hand, he went so far in his supralapsarianism as to make God the sinless author of sin (as the magistrate in inflicting capital punishment, or the soldier in the battle, are innocently guilty of murder).”[46]

But when you ask Calvin specifically how a person ends up in eternal damnation, his response would be that because of the person’s sin, an inherent contradiction that even modern Calvinists cannot answer properly.

Prominent Calvinists keep saying that people end up in eternal damnation because they are rebels. One prominent Calvinist writes,

“the only difference between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy is the sovereign grace of God that changes the heart of the rebel sinner and turns him from being a God-hater into a God-lover.”[47]

But those same Calvinists do not tell us that, according to Calvinism, this is the condition of everyone in the world. Moreover, they do not tell us that Calvin’s central axiom precludes the idea that people are condemned because of their sins. Weren’t they already predestined to damnation in the first place?

A corollary to Calvin’s principle here is that people are responsible and even blamed for their actions even though they cannot possibly do otherwise! Richard Dawkins gives us a somewhat secularized version of Calvin’s contradiction:

“We—and that means all living things—are survival machines programmed to propagate the digital database that did the programming.”[48]

Yet in the Selfish Gene, Dawkins writes that “We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicator.”[49]

We? Who’s we? Can machines choose to rebel? Where did they get that “will” or the “freedom” to do so? If the biological determinist is right, then I guess Dawkins must have some Calvinistic DNA in his system.

Martin Luther, the leading light in the Protestant Reformation, challenged “papal authority over Christendom”[1] by dropping his 95 theses in 1517. But, as we shall see, that was not what the Protestant Reformation was all about and it was not why Luther was excommunicated.

Pope Leo longed for an amicable solution, but Luther was too far gone.[2] Not only that, the fire which Luther had lit started to spread across Germany, even among humanists.

German scholar and poet Ulrich von Hutten began to take up arms, denouncing the Catholic Church as a “gigantic bloodsucking worm” and the pope as “a bandit chief…Rome is a sea of impurity, a mire of filth, a bottomless sink of iniquity. Should we not flock from all quarters to compass the destruction of this common curse of humanity?”[3]

Hutten also declared of the German clergy,

“Begone, ye unclean swine! Depart from the sanctuary, ye infamous traffickers! Touch not the altars with your desecrated hands!…How dare you spend the money intended for pious uses in luxury, dissipation, and pomp, while honest men are suffering hunger?”

Luther, of course, stayed away from Hutten’s violent tirade. But many of Luther’s statements were vague enough that many could interpret or apply them in a negative light. Luther declared,

“Above all, we should drive out from German lands the papal legates with their ‘powers’—which they sell us for large sums of money—to legalize unjust gains, dissolve oaths, vows, and agreements, saying that the pope has authority to do this.”[4]

Luther added theological error upon error by identifying the pope as “the true Antichrist” and Rome as “the Synagogue of Satan”[5] (yet if one follows Luther’s sola scriptura, there is no mention of a specific individual as the “true Antichrist,” an issue that will be covered later.)

The word “antichrist” itself is mentioned only four times in the New Testament, and it is talking about a metaphysical and categorical rejection of Christ and his deity. “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

It was only a matter of time before Luther was accused of spreading the “‘Bohemian poison’ (the heresies of Huss) and subverting all ecclesiastical order.”[6]

Over time, a number of professors at the University of Wittenberg began to declare that Luther was right. At the same time, other individuals began to denounce Luther as a heretic.

In the summer of 1520, Leo X ordered some of Luther’s writings to be burned and admonished Luther once again to recant.[7] In the meantime, Luther’s movement began to spread like wildfire in places like Mainz, Louvain, Cologne, and Ingolstadt.[8] Yet in places like Erfurt, students “threw all available copies” of the bull “into the river.”[9]

Luther finally appeared before the Diet of Worms in 1521 to be questioned about his theological activity. As soon as he landed in Erfurt, a large crowd, among them forty professors, gave him a standing ovation.[10]

Ulrich von Hutten

When he was asked the question, “Do you recant, or do you not?” Luther asked for, and received, a day to seriously reconsider the repercussions of his decision. During that same day, Hutten sent him a letter asking him to stand firm and unmovable. Other sympathetic friends came to comfort him.[11] That was surely a cataclysmic moment in Luther’s life.

Although Luther initially rejected indulgences on the basis of his reading of Scripture, Luther later began rejecting Scripture on the basis of his theology. This became quite clear when he stated:

“Whatever does not preach Christ is not Apostolic, even though it be written by St. Peter or St. Paul…Whatever does preach Christ would be Apostolic even if it proceeded from Judas, Pilate, or Herod.”[12]

Many of Luther’s own doctrines would certainly fail this incoherent test. Luther rejected the book of James because it was inconsistent with Luther’s view of justification by faith alone, calling it an “epistle of straw.”[13]

Luther, to his dying day, despised the book of James and wrote in Table Talk that

“We should throw the epistle of James out of this school [meaning Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning…

“He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other.”[14]

In another work, Luther even talked about “throwing Jimmy in the stove”[15] because “Jimmy” did not agree with Luther.

In other words, Luther theologically appealed to sola scriptura, but practically was content to pick and choose what agreed with his views—a consistent pattern that has died out over the centuries among Reformed and Protestant theologians, most specifically among Christian Zionists.

James 2:26 unequivocally declares, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

Luther made things even more complicated when it comes to Romans 3:28, which reads, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Luther, right after faith, added the word “alone” in his translation. When asked for an exegetical explanation, Luther responded,

“If your Papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at once: ‘Doctor Martin Luther will have it so,’ and says ‘Papist and donkey are one thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papist, but their masters and judges.”[16]

Luther was simply shooting himself in the toes, and it is pretty clear here that he was indirectly and subtly postulating infallibility or categorical axioms without which his own theology—sola scriptura—would fall.

Yet for Luther, papal infallibility was like a red flag to a bull. He was so carnally blinded that he didn’t seem to understand what the Church meant by infallibility, a misconception that lingers on to this very day.

Sinclair B. Ferguson

Luther did not seem to make a distinction between the Pope as a sinner and the Pope defending infallible truth—two paradoxical yet compatible tendencies. Even Reformed scholars such as Sinclair B. Ferguson agree that “the genius of Rome, unlike Wittenberg [Luther] and Geneva [Calvin], has always been its ability to hold opposite tendencies together.”[17]This is a huge issue and it serves no purpose to expand on it here.

It must be said that Rome proved to be much more rational than the father of the Protestant Reformation because ontological truth, by its very nature, is “infallible.” Any truth claim has to have some form of “infallibility,” otherwise the claim makes no sense whatsoever. This is fundamental in epistemological pursuit and Luther should have known this.

As a corollary and as G. K. Chesterton rightly put it, “all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind.”[18] In other words, the denial of any truth claim is another truth claim.

Luther’s own statement that “Doctor Martin Luther will have it so” is a classic example. And since Luther knocked out Rome’s infallibility, Luther had to implicitly establish a new infallibility, which was Luther himself.

More importantly, Luther would have had a hard time refuting people like John Hagee and the whole Christian Zionist movement. If Luther objects to their extreme Zionist worldview, they could easily say, “Dr. John Hagee would have it so.”

And when you reach that circular matrix, you can be sure that reason or rational inquiry is out of the equation and ideology or preconceived notion will take precedence. It is like reasoning with people who keep postulating that the “Jewish question” is genetic.

You’ve got people like Charles Murray and other AEI writers saying that Jews are basically smarter than everyone else, that they are “God’s chosen people” and that this is one reason they are hated;[19] and then you have others who keep positing the extraordinary assertion (with no serious evidence) that Jewish behaviors (such as how to cheat the goyim) are ingrained in their DNA.

How does that work? Which one is actually DNA—the elevated IQ which Murray proposes, or the bad behaviors which much of the world does not like? Certainly those biological determinists cannot have it both ways.

John Hagee

What’s so funny is that when Jewish scientists themselves argue that much of the evidence for biological determinism has been forged, biological determinists continue to marshal the same intellectually boring and incoherent view that the “Jewish question” is genetic.

What those people do not seem to grasp is that what happens genetically happens mechanically and automatically, a notion that is compatible with Newtonian physics.

If it happens according to the laws of physics and chemistry—like gravity—why would a biological determinist want to persuade the Jew to act morally? Wouldn’t the Jew be rational in saying, “My genes made me do it?”

I just cannot hold my laughter when those biological determinists write raving responses because the Jew acts this or that way and that they need to change their way, but that bad behavior is in his genes! Not only that, we have to hold them responsible!

If biological determinists cannot see this intellectual logjam, then rational discussion is of no use. The Enlightenment thinkers, were they alive today, would probably have raised their hands in adulation telling biological determinists, “Amen, brothers! Preach it! Thanks for making our metaphysical view comprehensible to modernity!”

If Christ did not accept the doctrine of the Pharisees who kept saying that they are the children of Abraham—implying super DNA—then the idea as articulated by biological determinists must be resisted precisely because it lacks scientific integrity and intellectual honesty. The issue is essentially theological and moral. As E. Michael Jones pointed out,

“The culture wars are simply not understandable in racial terms [or genetic terms]. The different sides in the culture wars may have used race as a pretext, but the identity of the antagonists was ethnic not racial in the sense commonly portrayed in the media.”[20]

This is the central issue, and if people want to understand the “Jewish question,” they must get a grip of the theological underpinning. The first institution to understand this is the Church. Jewish revolutionaries are aware of this.

Leo Pfeffer

For example, Leo Pfeffer, a Jewish revolutionary who “advised, planned and argued more church-state cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than anyone else in American history,” wrote,

“whenever I felt that my daughter should not have something she wanted, she threatened to marry a Catholic army officer from Alabama.

“The truth of the matter was that I did not like the Catholic Church as I did not like the military and the South and for pretty much the same reasons. In the first place, it stood for what I opposed, and opposed . . . what I stood for.”[21]

Biological determinists, because of their superficial knowledge of the conflict, categorize the “Jewish question” in essentially racial terms when in fact the issue always revolves theology and morality. If they doubt the seriousness of this statement, they need to go back to the Elizabethan Age and see how the issue played out.

If that is too hard to do, they need to go back to ancient Rome, where the theatrical spectacle of the gladiatorial games almost destroyed the moral life of one of Augustine’s closest friends, Alypius.[22]

More precisely, biological determinists need to go back to ancient Greece, where all the major players were essentially “white,” and where the cult of Dionysus was essentially terrorizing young people—most particularly women.[23]

————————————————–

After comparing himself to Paul, Luther called all of those who disagreed with his insertion “donkeys” and boasted that regardless of what they said, “the word allein shall remain in my New Testament.”[24]

It is no surprise that the Protestant Reformation was bound to spark a detour in the Christian West. Whether he liked it or not, with statements like that, Luther opened the door for people to apply their own presuppositions onto Christianity.

And it would not be an irrational argument to say that the Dispensational movement that grew out of the nineteenth century had it proto-basis in the Protestant Reformation, although Luther would almost disagree strongly with the movement.

Luther also “questioned the Epistle of Hebrews” and even declared that the book of Revelation is “neither Apostolic nor Prophetic.”[25] He also stated that “Solomon’s proverbs were not the work of Solomon.”[26]

By doing this picking and choosing, Luther proved that his critics were right all along: Luther did not really believe in sola scriptura. Even Luther’s widely read treatise, On the Bondage of the Will, published in 1525, could not find explicit and strong support from sola scriptura or reason. It is that book that is the quintessential definition of the Reformation. Luther himself declared,

“Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us.”[27]

Calvinist writer J. I. Packer writes that the book is “the greatest piece of writing that came from Luther’s pen.” Prior to Luther, the Catholic Church maintains that man’s will is a gift from God and a person cannot even use this gift to earn his salvation. Canon 4 of the Council of Orange, which was written in 529 A.D., states:

“If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself…”

Moreover, since man’s free will is a gift from God, it therefore cannot contradict God’s overarching purpose in salvation. Luther changed that by making man’s free will irrelevant and unimportant in salvation, and this is why Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

————————————————–

In his preface to the German Bible written in 1522, Luther made it clear that the book of Revelation is “neither apostolic or prophetic” and therefore stated,

“I can in nothing detect that it was provided by the Holy Spirit.”

Luther denounced the pope as being dogmatic, but Luther is making dogmatic statements that obviously contradict his own theological premise, namely sola scriptura. Luther continued:

“Moreover, he [John] seems to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly—more than any other of the sacred books do, though they are much more important…

“Let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into the book. There is one sufficient reason for me to think highly of it—Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle above all else is bound to do.”[28]

Right here Luther was digging his own theological grave and was disqualifying himself as an exegete. The first two verses open the book as follows:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Revelation 1:1-2).

Luther would have saved himself some trouble had he just made an honest confession that he did not understand the book.

Yet to say that it is not apostolic or prophetic, or that Christ is not taught in the book, means that Luther to a large extent applied sola scriptura where it fit his theology.

In his new preface written in 1546, Luther was somewhat more optimistic declaring that the book could be examined in light of historical accounts.[29]

In a nutshell, Luther was not consistent on his appeal to sola scriptura, and he was already a flesh-and-blood Judaizer by the time he wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, a book we shall discuss in the next article. It is the same thing with John Calvin, who ended up disagreeing with Luther on soteriology.

Luther’s

“defiance at Worms, and his survival, had given his followers a heady elation. At Erfurt students, artisans, and peasants attacked and demolished forty parish houses, destroyed libraries and rent rolls, and killed a humanist (June 1521).”[30]

In December of the same year, “some students and townsfolk, armed with knives, entered the parish church of Wittenberg, drove the priests from the altars, and stoned some worshipers who were praying before a statue of the Virgin.”

The next day, “forty students demolished the altars of the Franciscan monastery in Wittenberg.”[31] That same year, “Gabriel Zwilling, a leader of the Augustinian Congregation, invited his hearers to burn religious pictures and demolish altars wherever found. On December 27 oil was poured upon the fire by ‘prophets’ arriving from Zwickau.”[32]

Luther of course did not approve any of this violence. He later wroteEarnest Exhortation for All Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion. Yet in the very same work, Luther could not fully make his point clear that violence is against Christ and the gospel. Instead he wrote:

“It seems probable that there is danger of an uprising, and that priests, monks, bishops and the entire spiritual estate may be murdered or driven into exile, unless they seriously and thoroughly reform themselves.

“For the common man has been brooding over the injury he has suffered in property, in body, and in soul, and has become provoked. They have tried him too far, and have most unscrupulously burdened him beyond measure.

“He is neither able nor willing to endure it longer, and could indeed have good reason to lay about him with flails and cudgels, as the peasants are threatening to do. Now I am not at all displeased to hear that the clergy are brought to such a state of fear and anxiety. Perhaps they will come to their senses and moderate their mad tyranny…I will go further.

“If I had ten bodies, and could acquire so much favor with God that he would chasten them [the clergy] by the gentle means of bodily death or insurrection, I would most gladly give all my ten bodies to death in behalf of the poor peasants.”[33]

Luther, however, included other statements, saying things such as

“insurrection is unreasoning, and generally hurts the innocent more than the guilty. Hence no insurrection is ever right, no matter how good the cause in whose interest it is made.

“The harm resulting from it always exceeds the amount of reformation accomplished…My sympathies are and always will be with those against whom insurrection is made.”[34]

It appeared that Luther was talking out of both sides of his mouth, and there is no doubt that those people who were eager for revolution found in Luther’s writings things that would ignite the revolutionary fire.

Preaching against indulgences is one thing, but making statements contradicting the Cross of Christ is quite another. In fact, the Jews, who had no interest in the person of Jesus Christ, not only applauded Luther but aligned with him.

Numerous Jews were elated when they heard of the Reformation, not because they wanted to embrace Christianity to its full, but because it was a chance to ally themselves with a revolutionary theological movement. For this reason, Luther’s effort to challenge the papacy was praised by many Jews.[35]

Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, who became a Protestant, was Luther’s contemporary and friend. When Luther was in exile, Karlstadt and a number of Luther’s followers began to take action by “tearing down images of saints in churches,” but “Luther recommended moderation.”[36]

By way of mocking monks who did not get married, Karlstadt demanded that both secular priests and monks “should marry and procreate. Karlstadt set a pace by marrying, at forty, a girl of fifteen (January 19, 1522).”

Luther approved of this marriage, but he wrote: “‘Good Heavens! Will our Wittenbergers give wives to monks?’”[37] Luther himself “had forced [the revolutionary Thomas] Muntzer out of Saxony, for he feared the consequences of his teachings.”[38]

Muntzer pushed the envelope even further by agitating the workers in Bohemia, close to the place where the Hussites started their revolution. An ardent supporter of the Reformation, Muntzer thought that he and his associates, Nicholas Storch and Marcus Stubner, should be the arbiters of interpretation and exegesis.[39]

Luther dropped the bomb of sola scriptura, and Muntzer electrified it and turned it into a revolutionary act. Luther, then, began to see that sola scriptura had been challenged by Muntzer.[40]

In 1521, these three—Muntzer, Storch, and Stubner—tried to start an insurrection, but as soon as it was demolished, they fled. Muntzer ended up being a pastor in Allstedt, while Storch and Stubner landed in Wittenberg.[41]

But Karlstadt still had some work to do. “When the agents of the council proved dilatory in removing images, Karlstadt led his followers into the churches; pictures and crucifixes were torn from the walls, and resisting priests were pelted with stones.”[42]

By this time, Luther realized that he was the one who had released the revolutionaries to commit violence. Luther therefore “called on the princes to suppress” it.[43]

Durant declares, “Luther, the preachers, and the pamphleteers were not the cause of the revolt; the causes were the just grievances of the peasantry. But it could be argued that the gospel of Luther and his more radical followers ‘poured oil on the flames,’ and turned the resentment of the oppressed into utopian delusions, uncalculated violence, and passionate revenge.”[44]

By 1522, Luther seemed to have foreseen that the battle was going to turn into bloody acts of violence, and he began to formulate a series of sermons denouncing violent acts, saying things like “the sun, the moon, the stars, have been worshipped; shall we then pluck them out of the sky?”[45] Durant declares that Luther ‘was at his best and most Christian in those eight sermons in eight days.”[46]

At other times, Luther would preach that the peasants should not raise up arms. He wrote in part,

“For no matter how right you are, it is not for a Christian to appeal to law, or to fight, but to suffer wrong and endure evil; there is no other way…Christians fight for themselves not with sword and gun, but with the cross and suffering, just as Christ, our leader, does not bear a sword, but hangs upon the cross.”[47]

It seemed that this admonition was too late. Muntzer, Karlstadt, and others were already putting more oil in the flames by postulating that “farmers, miners, and cornthreshers understand the Gospel better, and can teach it better, than a whole village…of abbots and priests…or doctors of divinity.” Karlstadt even declared that they can do it “better than Luther.”[48]

Muntzer meant it when he said that “the godless,” meaning the priests and monks, “have no right to live except in so far as they are permitted to do so by the elect.”[49]

Not only that, Muntzer called upon the princes to march against the clergy. The princes declined. Then Muntzer called upon the people—mainly the peasants—to march against both the princes and the clergy to establish what later proved to be their own heaven on earth.[50]

Muntzer of course was implicitly reformulating the principles of the Old Testament. For example, it was right to take the life of a witch in the Old Testament. Muntzer, in a similar fashion, argued that godless people should not suffer to live, most particularly when they are in conflict with Christians.[51]

These radical turns were a challenge for Luther and the Reformation.[52]

Luther expelled Muntzer from his pulpit in 1524 and even called him the “Satan of Allstedt.”[53] Muntzer, for Luther, was a minister for the devil who was on his way to hell—he believed that heresy and acts of violence ran through Muntzer’s veins.[54]

Muntzer in turn started calling Luther names such as Dr. Liar, Father Pyssyfoot, a carrion crow, the Wittenberg Pope, and the archdevil.[55] Muntzer ended up wandering in various towns, “announcing the deliverance of ‘Israel,’ and the imminent Kingdom of Heaven on earth.”[56]

Muntzer’s message was so radical in Prague in 1521 that he convinced the Bohemians that should they fail to defend God’s word they will be invaded by the Turks the following year.[57]

Eventually he won the ears of many, and in 1525 he and Pfeiffer and their followers “drove out the monks, and appropriated all the property of the Church.”[58]

Muntzer again lusted after more blood, telling his followers, “Forward while the fire is hot! Let your swords be ever warm with blood!”[59]

————————————————–

By August 1524, Muntzer’s army was gathering momentum, and with the help of Hans Muller, 30,000 peasants refused to pay taxes. By April of the following year, Muntzer was still preaching revolution, telling his disciples things like

“show no pity…Pay no attention to the cries of the godless…Alert the villages and towns and especially the mineworkers and other good fellows who will be of use. We cannot slumber any longer…Don’t let your sword grow cold, don’t let it hang down limply! Hammer away ding-dong on the anvils of Nimrod [meaning the princes], cast their tower to the ground!

“As long as they live it is impossible for you to rid yourselves of the fear of men. One cannot say anything to you about God as long as they rule over you. Go to it, go to it, while it is day! God goes before you; follow, follow!”[60]

References to the Old Testament with respect to dealing with the “godless” were rampant in many of Muntzer’s sermons.

Certainly things were not going well for Luther. The peasant leaders sent Luther twelve articles in which they disagreed with many of the teachings and practices of the clergy. Luther did not approve their articles, but he had been given a chance to completely dissociate himself from the revolutionaries. Instead, he wrote:

“We have no one on earth to thank for this mischievous rebellion except you, princes and lords, and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks, whose hearts are hardened against the Holy Gospel, though you know that it is true and that you cannot refute it.”[61]

Finally, in an attempt to encourage peace, Luther gave this address, which the peasants failed to follow:

“Choose among the nobles certain counts and lords, and from the cities certain councilmen, and have these matters dealt with and settled in a friendly way. You lords, let down your stubbornness…and give up a little of your tyranny and oppression, so that poor people get air and room to live.

“The peasants for their part should let themselves be instructed, and give over and let go some of the Articles that grasp too far and too high.”[62]

The peasants, believing that Luther had betrayed them, moved along with the violent revolution anyway.[63] It was inevitable, then, that many would put some blame on Luther for the peasants’ revolt and the rebellious and violent nature of it. A large number of peasants, in turn, believed that Luther had deserted them.[64]

By the spring of 1525, the fire was already ignited in many major places such as Heilbronn, Rothenburg, and Wurzburg.[65] In March in Rothenburg,

“the priests were driven from the cathedral, religious images were demolished, a chapel was smashed to the ground, and clerical wine cellars were emptied with triumphant gaiety.”[66]

The following month, under the lead of Jakob Wehe,

“3,000 peasants captured the town [of Leipheim on the Danube near Ulm] drank all discoverable wine, pillaged the church, smashed the organ, made themselves leggings from sacerdotal vestments, and paid mock homage to one of their number seated on the altar and robed as a priest.”[67]

Durant declares that

“in nearly every section of Germany peasant bands were running riot. Monasteries were sacked, or were compelled to pay high ransoms…On April 11 the townsfolk of Bamberg renounced the bishop’s feudal sovereignty, pillaged and burned his castle, and plundered the houses of the orthodox.

“In Alsace the revolt spread so rapidly that by April’s end every Catholic or rich landlord in the province was in terror of his life. On April 28 an army of 20,000 peasants attacked Zabern, seat of the bishop of Strasbourg, and despoiled his monastery.”[68]

These violent acts happened in almost every major city. For example, former Episcopal secretary Michael Gasmaier incited an attack on all orthodox clergymen and even “sacked the local monastery, and remained rampant and unsubdued for a year.”[69]

We see similar results at Freiburgim-Breisgau, where “the peasants looted castles and monasteries, and forced the city to join the ‘Evangelical Brotherhood.’ In the same month a peasant band drove the bishop of Wurzburg out of his palace, and feasted on his stores. In June the powerful and warlike Archbishop Matthias Lang was chased from his palace in Salzburg into his castle fortress overlooking the city.”[70]

————————————————–

Now that the revolution had turned into a bloodbath, Luther forthrightly rejected it. He declared,

“In the former book I did not venture to judge the peasants, since they had offered to be set right and be instructed…But before I look around they, forgetting their offer, betake themselves to violence, and particular it is the work of the archdevil [Munzer] who rules at Mulhausen…

“Any man against whom sedition can be proved is outside the law of God and the Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well…

“Therefore let everyone who can smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him he will strike you, and a whole land with you.”[71]

Here again Luther was regurgitating what he had learned from the Old Testament, not from what he had learned at the foot of the Cross and from the doctrines of Christ. Moreover, as Protestant scholar Alister McGrath himself argues, Luther and the other Reformers were pragmatists in that on many occasions they were ready to allow secular government to be involved in the movement, so long as it advanced the cause.[72]

If that is the case, then Luther once again was largely inconsistent, for we all know that secular authorities have no say in theological disputes.

It is clear that the Reformation was much more complex and it cannot be reduced to just the motto of sola scriptura, for “a secondary hermeneutic of political character was at least on occasion instrumental in [its] propagation.”[73]

McGrath agrees, stating that it is “evident that the question of how the early Reformed theological communities interpreted Scripture was more problematic than is sometimes appreciated.”[74]

The peasant revolt was eventually crushed. In May 1525, Duke Henry and Philip Landgrave marched against Muntzer’s untrained and disordered peasant army and massacred thousands outside Frankenhausen.[75]

When Henry and Landgrave’s army reached the town, they pleaded to the rebels to surrender. Muntzer told the peasants that God would deliver them in the nick of time, using the sign of a halo around the sun.

Muntzer could not have been more excited, and incited the rebels even more to stand still and meet the enemy head on.[76]

In the end, thousands were killed, while Henry and Landgrave only lost six men. Durant says only 5,000 rebels were killed,[77] but Carter Lindberg says over 6,000 lost their lives.[78] Three hundred others were captured and condemned to death.

“Their women pleaded mercy for them; it was granted, on condition that the women should beat out the brains of two priests who had encouraged the revolt; it was done, while the triumphant dukes looked on.

“Muntzer hid, was captured, was tortured into confessing the error of his ways, and was beheaded before the headquarters of the princes.

“Pfeiffer and his 1,200 soldiers defended Muhlhausen; they were overcome; Pfeiffer and other leaders were put to death, but the citizens were spared on paying a total ransom of 40,000 guilders,” nearly $1 million at the time.[79]

Other rebellions were also crushed. Truchsess led his army to Boblingen, where he tricked the peasants and burned the place to the ground, while he

“slowly roasted Jacklein Rohrbach, who had directed the ‘Massacre of Weinsberg.’”[80]

Truchsess continued to march to other places such as Konigshofen and Ingolstadt, where he “beheaded eighty-one chosen rebels as a memento for the rest.”[81]

One after another, each city or town that the peasants had taken by force was eventually retaken by massacring almost every one that came their way.

Twenty thousand peasants lost their lives in Alsace, while others ended up surrendering to the opposing army, many of whom were hanged or beheaded, or had their hands chopped off and their eyes gouged out.

Durant declares that “the air of the towns was fetid with the stench of the dead.”[82] In the face of such cruel punishment, the princes eventually had to intervene in order to diminish the level of torture that was being done.[83]

The following year, 1526, Michael Gasmaier again flared up the revolutionary spirit. He started by calling anyone who was not a protestant “godless” and claiming that they needed to be put to death. He marched into churches and tore down their pictures and shrines.

Although Gasmaier defeated many of the troops that were sent against him, in the end he had to flee to Italy.

“The Archduke Ferdinand set a price on his head, and two Spanish cutthroats earned the sum by assassinating him in his room in Padua (1528).”[84]

Once again rebellions like these caused huge loss of life.

“Over 50,000 homeless peasants roamed the highways or hid in the woods. Widows and orphans were legion…

“The rebels had in many instances burned the charters that recorded their feudal dues; new charters were now drawn up, renewing the obligations, sometimes more leniently, sometimes more rigorously, than before…elsewhere serfdom was strengthened, and would continue, east of the Elbe, till the nineteenth century.”[85]

Durant, a philo-Semitic historian, declares,

“The Reformation itself almost perished in the Peasants’ War. Despite Luther’s disclaimers and denunciations, the rebellion had flaunted Protestant colors and ideas: economic aspirations were dressed in phrases that Luther had sanctified.”[86]

Luther declared,

“My opinion is that it is better that all peasants be killed than that the princes and magistrates perish, because the rustics took the sword without divine authority.”[87]

He moved on to say in An Open Letter Concerning the Hard Book against the Peasants that

“The rulers ought to seize these people by the cap and make them hold their tongues. If they think this answer is too hard, and that this is talking violence and only shutting men’s mouths, I reply that this is right. A rebel is not worth answering with arguments, for he does not accept them. The answer for such mouth is a fist that brings blood from the nose. The peasants would not listen…

“Their ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders. Such pupils need such a rod. He who will not hear God’s Word when it is spoken with kindness must listen to the headsman when comes with his axe…

“Of mercy I will neither hear nor know anything, but give heed to God’s will in His Word…If He will have wrath and not mercy, what have you to do with mercy? Did not Saul sin by showing mercy upon Amalek when he failed to execute God’s wrath as he had been commanded?

“You who are praising mercy so highly because the peasants are beaten, why did you not praise it when the peasants were raging, smiting, robbing, burning, and plundering, until they were terrible to men’s eyes and ears? Why were they not merciful to the princes and lords, whom they wanted to wipe out entirely?”[88]

It is clear by now those teachings did not come from Christ but from the Old Testament. Luther cannot have it both ways—he cannot argue for sola scriptura and still be inconsistent when it comes to following Christ all the way. Protestant scholar Justo L. Gonzalez declares that Luther “urged the victorious princes to be merciful.”[89]

If that is the case, then Luther was once again inconsistent in his writings. How can the princes be merciful when Luther himself wrote that the peasants’ ears should be unbuttoned with bullets?

Surely Luther must have been aware of this contradiction. Perhaps his theology did not allow him to see the obvious. Throughout much of his discourse on the peasants, Luther’s sola scriptura was the Old Testament, not Christ.

Because of the devastating effect of the revolt, Luther stayed in Wittenberg for many years in solitude, not even attending at his father’s deathbed. He wrote during that time,

“All is forgotten that God has done for the world through me, now lords, priests, and peasants are all against me, and threaten my death.”[90]

————————————————–

Jewish revolutionaries during the Reformation period were more than happy to seize the moment. As Jewish historian Louis I. Newman declared,

“The Jews of the Reformation era took great interest in Protestant literature; Luther’s works were distributed and bought even in Jerusalem.”

Long before Luther and the Jews parted company, they previously

“looked upon the Reformation as the first indication of the advent of the Messianic age…

“One of the remarkable testimonies to the role of Jews in the spread of religious reform movements in Europe is evident in the fact that the Marranos of Amsterdam sought to disseminate Luther’s writings in Spain with a view to break the sway of the Catholicism which had brought them so much suffering.”[91]

While the NSA has been snooping on Americans and much of the Western world, and while Google says that it will include your face in its advertisements next month,[1] Carnegie Mellon University has been producing what seems to be an alternative to those Zionist night prowlers.

“Carnegie Mellon University researchers claim they have created a smart-phone messaging app with security that not even the National Security Agency can break.

“The app is called SafeSlinger, and is free on the iTunes store, and Google play store for Android phones.

“In a press release from CMU’s CyLab, programmer Michael W. Farb said, ‘the most important feature is that SafeSlinger provides secure messaging and file transfer without trusting the phone company or any device other than my own smart-phone.’”[2]

If the project happens to be a success, it will certainly mean that the NSA and other Zionist outlets and technological devices, though powerful and ubiquitous, can be challenged. SaefeSlinger intends to restore balance where balance ought to be:

“Users regularly experience a crisis of confidence on the Internet. Is that email truly originating from the claimed individual? Is that Facebook invitation indeed from that person or is it a fake page set up by an impersonator? These doubts are usually resolved through a leap of faith, expressing the desperation of users.”[3]

When all the NSA lies are finally crumbling, most specifically the colossal lie that the NSA actually thwarted numerous terrorist plots,[4] an alternative certainly was needed, and Carnegie Mellon University, at least in this case, begins to implant the idea that an alternative to the NSA is not only possible but plausible.

If CMU can challenge the NSA within a short amount of time, surely other universities and institutions can get involved.

Where are the intellectual children of the West? The West certainly can use those fearless men at this critical time, particularly when the court itself has already given the NSA the go-ahead to continue to spy on Americans,[5] and particularly when Skype is currently under investigation for passing data to government agencies.[6]

SHUTDOWN THE NSA? I’M WITH YOU ON THAT ONE!

The West has not abandoned reason completely, and even when the Zionist mob still wants to invade Syria, the vast majority of people in the West do not want an invasion.[7] (The neoconservatives, in order to propound more lies, summon the idea that Syria’s chemical weapons were a threat to America.[8] America!)

NSA director Keith Alexander has recently intoned, “Shutdown Snowden? I’m with you on that one.”[9]

The intellectual children of the West should provide a parody of this statement: “Shutdown the neo-Bolshevik/Zionist/neoconservative/Mephistophelian machine? We are all with you on that one. Shutdown ‘born-again neocon’ Obama’s covert war on the Constitution?[10] We are all with you on that one.”

Certainly all Americans need to wake up. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon recently declared that the NSA has “damaged the U.S. economy so badly that Americans ‘should be in the streets with pitchforks.”[11] For the next three years, the NSA industry could cost about $35 billion.[12] All that money will come from the tax payers, not from the oligarchs and corporate greed like Goldman Sachs.

Wyden continues to say that “If a foreign enemy was doing this much to the economy,” people would be upset to the point that they will demand that the NSA be shut down.[13]

9/11 AND THE NSA

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has recently put out a study declaring that 9/11 was the linchpin for the government to snoop on virtually every American.[14]

If men of the West would actually concentrate on that study and move on to bravely reveal that Israeli spies were actually accomplices in the 9/11 attack,[15] the Zionist business would be in big trouble. We know for example that the NSA is largely an Israeli cell. In other words, the 9/11 attack gave the Israelis a political platform to snoop on all Americans.

Moreover, if men of the West can just stop the media propaganda for just one year and get to work, the Zionist machine would be out of business in just a few months.

Because the Zionist empire is based on colossal lies and fabrications, it doesn’t take a genius to deconstruct it and politically expose it to the entire world. All it takes now is a fearless politician (more precisely a president) who will care less about the consequences of exposing the Zionist empire.

Obama has already nominated Janet Yellen as chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Who is she? Well, you guessed it: she has become part of the long line of Jewish bloodline that has come to dominate the Federal Reserve; she has become part of what Patrick Willis would have called “the specter of the dreadful few.”[16] She has replaced Ben Shalom Bernanke. Neoconservative magazines such as Commentaryhave already given her great accolades.[17]

THINGS FALL APART BECAUSE MEN ARE COWARD

Let me just say in passing that men of the West simply have no choice but to get involved in this ideological war. If they think that they will be spared when the Zionist machine controls everything, they need to think again. Perhaps a few lines from The Lord of the Rings will help here:

TREEBEARD: The ents cannot hold back this war. We must weather such things as we have always done.

MERRY: How can that be your decision?

TREEBEARD: This is not our war.

MERRY: But you’re part of this world! Aren’t you? You must help. You must do something.

TREEBEARD: You are young and brave, master Merry. But your part in this tale is over. Go back to your home.

PIPPIN: Maybe Treebeard’s right. We don’t belong here, Merry. It’s too big for us. What can we do in the end? We’ve got the Shire. Maybe we should go home.

MERRY: The fires of Isengard will spread. And the woods of Tuckborough and Buckland will burn. And… and all that was once green and good in this world will be gone. There won’t be a Shire, Pippin.

The Zionist fires have already been spreading all across America, the Middle East, and much of the Western world. If good and decent men just stand there and watch as if the fires will not affect them, they are again underestimating the ideological strength of Zionism. They do not realize that Zionism wants to seal their doom and unleash the hounds of hell across much of the world, if you’ll pardon the language.

Slowly but surely there seems to be a small voice throughout the West that indicates that the power of Benjamin Netanyahu is slowly waning, despite the fact that he continues to use the same old lies.

The Jewish Daily Forward has recently declared that “Benjamin Netanyahu’s warning on Iran falls flat.”[18] The New York Times has said that Netanyahu took “a lonely stance denouncing Iran.”[19] Iran, indeed, continues to be a crook in the Zionist’s throat because Iran demands rational dialogue.[20]

In other words, the world is slowly waking up from their “dogmatic slumber,” to use Emmanuel Kant’s words. When Netanyahu is saying meow, we can ignore him because he has political lies but not political teeth.

KING BIBI VS. THE IRANIAN PEOPLE

Netanyahu got caught with his pants down when he said that if Iranians were really free, they would be wearing blue jeans and listening to Western music.[21] The New York Times itselfresponded by saying, “The problem is that Iranians do wear jeans and manage to listen to whatever music they want to listen to, just like people almost anywhere, except maybe in North Korea.”[22]

One Iranian responded, “Netanyahu, here are my #Jeans and #Western music.”[23] Another Iranian later tweeted, “Netanyahu, three days ago I bought a pair of jeans.”[24]

But let us suppose that Netanyahu is true. Let us follow his logic to its own “logical” conclusion. According to his argument, Rabbis in Israel aren’t free because they do not wear blue jeans and listen to Western music.

But let us leave that aside for the moment and examine what Netanyahu seems to have suggested here.

As we have obliquely noted in the last article, the current music industry is largely Jewish and Masonic.[25]People like Jay-Z and his “all the single ladies” wife are covert members of the illuminati club, which is largely Crowleyan in tradition,[26] which is Masonic in nature,[27] and which is Jewish or Qabalistic in ideology.[28]

Aleister Crowley himself was a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.), which “drew heavily on fraternal lodge practice, borrowing fraternal (especially Masonic) methods as a basic vocabulary of ceremonial working.”[29]

Crowley ended up influencing L. Ron Hubbard,[30] who established The Church of Scientology, and the Church of Scientology ends ups having a lasting effect on celebrities of various stripes: Tom Cruise, Juliette Lewis, John Travolta, Priscilla Presley, Kirstie Alley, Erika Christensen, Jennifer Elfman, and countless others.[31]

By Western music, Netanyahu surely does not mean the classical Western tradition, which includes people like Bach, Handel, Hayden, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak, Liszt, etc.

Those men developed highly intellectual and highly orderly music, which in turn produced a culture that was conducive to the moral order. Even prior to the birth of Christ, music was used in Asian countries such as China as a vehicle to produce harmony and cultural docility and civility.[32]

Rihanna

An appeal to both the intellect and reason has always been a central theme in developing classical music. As Bach himself put it, “The end of all music should be the glory of God and the refreshment of the human spirit.”

Moreover, classical composers were largely Christian or were working within a Christian framework or culture. Take for example Richard Wagner, who previously produced disorganized and confusing music such as Tristan and Isolde.

But as soon as this “cranky and desperate decadent suddenly fell helpless and broken on his knees before the Christian cross,” to use Friedrich Nietzsche’s words,[33] Wagner’s music began to take a radical turn, and Wagner began to produce something radically different. This was the breaking point between Nietzsche and Wagner, and Nietzsche eventually hated Wagner for prostrating before the cross.[34]

Moreover, surely Netanyahu is not oblivious to the fact that Iran has also produced classical composers such as Ali Rahbari, Aminollha Hossein, Anoushiravan Rohani, Behzad Ranjbaran, Fereidoun Farzaneh, Hormoz Farhat, among others.

In a nutshell, what Netanyahu indirectly ends up saying is that Iranians will be free if they start listening to Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Madonna, KISS, Black Sabbath, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Kanye West, Mariah Carey—people who have already given their allegiance to the Masonic and Crowleyan ideology that has come to dominate much of the music industry.

Netanyahu is not that stupid. Surely he knows the ideological consequences when a culture indulges itself in nihilistic, subversive and dysfunctional music. And surely he knows very well that music has been used as a form of subversion in the twentieth century.[35] It was Jewish revolutionary Vladimir Lenin who declared that “One quick way to destroy a society is through its music.”[36]

It was Jewish revolutionaries such as Jerry Rubin who ended up playing an influential role in the counter-culture revolution. It was Rubin himself who penned the book Do It!: Scenarios of the Revolution, which became a sort of Bible for many. Rubin, co-founder of the Yippie movement and who called kids to leave their homes and burned down schools, declared in psychoanalytic terms:

“The new left sprang from Elvis’ gyrating pelvis…Hard animal rock energy beat surged hot through us, the driving rhythm arousing repressed passions…Affluent culture, by producing a car and a car radio for every middle-class home, gave Elvis a base for recruiting.

“While a car radio in the front seat rocked…young kids in the back seat were (having sex) to the hard rock beat. The back seat produced the sexual revolution, and the car radio was the medium for subversion.”[37]

Rubin probably knew what happened in the Soviet Union. By the 1920s, the Marxists-Leninists in Russia knew pretty well that the arts, particularly music, could be used as a form of subversion.[38] Jewish scholar Theodore Levin himself notes that

“Soviet policies aimed to recast popular culture and peasant culture no less than the fine arts, and these policies were implemented not only throughout the vast territory of Russia itself, but in every republic and region of the Soviet empire.”[39]

It was Scottish writer Andrew Fletcher (1655-1716) who wrote that

“If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation. And we find that most of the ancient legislators thought they could not well reform the manners of any city without the help of a lyrick, and sometimes of a dramatick poet.”[40]

By mentioning “city,” Fletcher probably had ancient Greece in mind, where Plato and Aristotle talk about the same issue. Plato himself said in Laws that

“Through foolishness they deceived themselves into thinking that there was no right or wrong in music — that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave . As it was, the criterion was not music but a spirit of law-breaking.”

Plato also suggested that the improper music has the potential to create dissonance, which “corrupted everything…”[41]

The study between the relationship of music and the state continues. Neuroscientist Richard Pellegrino noted back in 1999:

“Many songs that ring up large sales not only produce endorphin highs but relate so well to listeners’ emotional lives that people create strong and long-lasting associations between those songs and other events and people in their lives. The songs become anchors. They trigger a flood of emotions and images: some from experience, some from daydreams.

“These images have the ability to instantaneously produce very powerful changes in emotional states… Take it from a brain guy. In 20 years of research, I still cannot affect a person’s state of mind the way that one single song can.”[42]

In a nutshell, Netanyahu, like his Jewish predecessors who sought to destroy cultural harmony in places like Russia, would like to subvert the Iranian culture. Once the culture is seduced by Jewish ideology, then Iranians, like many Americans, would be blind to recognize the actual enemy.

AMERICA UNDER SIEGE

Zionism has already tried to take away the rights of every citizen to bear arms, a right that is ingrained in the Constitution. Fear has certainly got the best of men of the West. It is fear that keeps the West from reporting the crimes committed by the Jewish state. For example, on October 8th,

“Masked Jewish settlers burst into a school Wednesday, vandalizing cars and torching olive trees during a rampage that forced schoolchildren to remain locked in classrooms to keep safe… The settlers smashed the windshields of several cars outside, and then lit a fire that burned through a nearby olive grove…”[43]

How is that possible without a universal outcry? Well, “Israelis believe Jews should be privileged, [and] non-Jews should not decide major issues.”[44] Moreover, “One-third of Israeli support wartime concentration camps for Palestinian citizens.”[45]

After all, didn’t Ovadia Yosef declare that “all these evil people [Palestinians] should perish from this world”?[46]

In response to the passing of Yosef, New York mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio twitted, “Millions of people around the world lost a leader today in Rabbi Chacham Ovadia Yosef. His wisdom, charity and sensitivity were legendary.”[47]

De Blasio could not tell us what those “wisdom, charity and sensitivity” actually were. Maybe he was referring to the following wisdom from the mouth of the great Rabbi himself:

“Goyim (gentiles, non-Jews) were born only to serve us [Jews]. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.”[48]

This is not hate, but if you stop to ban circumcision in Europe, that is hate and anti-Semitic.[49] Recently, Lair Lapid told Charlie Rose that “about 3 million Palestinians is problematic to the Jewish identity of Israel, and I want to live in a Jewish state…”[50]

The Arabs, Lapid continued, is an existential threat in Israel, “And we have to make sure that everyone will be participants in the Israeli game… So yes the internal threats are more threatening to me than the external.”

Instead of chastising Yosef for his obvious bigotry, Benjamin Netanyahu sent a message to England declaring that Iran must stop calling for the destruction of Israel![51]

Yosef’s thesis only makes sense within the framework of Talmudic reasoning. But if George Bernard Shaw is right, that indifference is the essence of inhumanity,[52] then the Zionist movement cannot go unchallenged and unchecked.

Unless the Zionists are dethroned from their political power, they will continue to create chaos in much of the world. Consider for example the rebels/terrorists. Human Rights Watch has recently detailed the many atrocities produced by those rebels. Those atrocities include “executions, indiscriminate shootings, and hostage,” and the killing of civilians, which led to carnage against Alawite villagers.[53] The rebels slaughtered at least 190 civilians in that region last August.[54]

But what is an Israeli double agent such as Isabel kershner of the New York Times to do? Here’s the title of her recent article: “Israeli Man Fatally Bludgeoned in West Bank.”[55] The Jerusalem Post reported the same thing.[56]

One Israeli man will certainly make it to the New York Times, but 190 civilians cannot. If one Israeli man dies, the Western world has to know that. But if 6,000 civilians lost their lives in Iraq in the past 10 months alone,[57] the public just needs to be blinded by watching Lady Gaga being literally prostituted on stage.

Justin Amash, the young and promising politician who has been appealing to the Constitution to support some of his arguments, was shocked to discover that both the Democratic and Republican parties do not really defend the Constitution. He lamented:

“When I entered Congress, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I have followed through on that promise. The political elites of both parties don’t like what I’m doing.

“They have a vision of government that is very different from the vision laid out in the Constitution. As the elites see it, the American people are their subjects, and a benevolent privileged few—standing above the law—must watch over the rest of society.

“History and logic show us that no matter how ‘good’ the leaders are, unrestrained government invites corruption and cronyism. On the whole, government power always benefits the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of others.”[1]

We could have helped Amash here.

Yours truly has been saying for months that Washington, where both the Republican and Democratic parties politically reside, is warped around the Zionist matrix, which always promises to fight terrorism and protect the American people but inexorably ends up delivering something else, i.e., giving allegiance to the Israeli regime in America[2] and deliberately censoring out dissident voices in academic institutions in countries such as Canada,[3] supporting and training radical terrorist cells such as the Syrian rebels under the Obama administration[4] (even though they knew that the rebels are terrorists[5]) and the Mujahideen under Bush,[6] killing innocent and dissident voices such as Rachel Corrie,[7] killing Iranian scientists in the name of fighting terrorism,[8] creating havoc in Iraq where hundreds of people die virtually every single day,[9] attempting to murder at least one former U.S. Senator (James Abourezk),[10] blackmailing countries such as Russia for resisting the neo-bolshevik and diabolical plan and allowing the rebels to attack Moscow’s embassy in Damascus,[11] creating aesthetic terrorism among precious Americans by propounding that Iran is building a nuclear bomb,[12] unleashing sexual debauchery and pornography in what they view as a “Christian culture” in America to corrupt the young and defenseless[13] so that they do not have time to think about serious issues, grabbing both the American and precious Muslim people by the rope and swinging them back and forth into economic suffering, and finally sending precious Americans a six trillion-dollar bill.[14]

If you were an American soldier and are confronted with all these facts. If you knew that supporting terrorist groups indirectly ends up blowing churches sky high in places like Pakistan,[15] what would you do?

Well, our precious soldiers are committing suicide. Every day, at least 22 soldiers end up taking their own lives.[16] But a large portion of Americans are much more concerned about getting the new iPhones[17] than worrying about our precious soldiers dying for the Zionist mafia. In other words, Max Boot’s plan seems to be working.

DR. OCTOPUS

Amash is also concerned that the national debt is out of control, but Amash is a proponent of rapacious Capitalism, the one giant octopus that never ceases to expand the power of the oligarchs such as Goldman Sachs and Wall Street at the expense of the poor and needy.

Amash rightly says that “unrestrained governments invites corruption and cronyism,” but Amash does not apply that principle to Capitalism, which always opens the door for rapacious usury, which always ends up benefiting the rich and powerful, and which ultimately ends up in economic suffering, as we have seen during the economic collapse.

(I still have not had the opportunity to discuss Capitalism. I will do so as soon as our study on the history of Christian Zionism is complete. Some people think that if you are against Capitalism, then you are against free trade and economic exchange. In other words, they mistakenly believe that Capitalism is simply economic exchange. Moreover, if you are against Capitalism, then you must be a Communist or Socialist. As we shall see in the future, this is not the case.)

I was also somewhat surprised that Amash is a fan of Ayn Rand,[18] a Jewish ideologue whose work we have discussed in two previous articles.[19]

THE NSA STRIKES BACK

Amash was not the only person who was surprised that our political categories do not support the Constitution. Daniel McCarthy of the American Conservative is astonished that the holy trinity of anti-war proponents—Obama, Kerry, and Hagel—radically turned their backs on what they had previously committed themselves to.[20]

The reason is simple: the holy trinity had already been politically bar-mitzvahed and had become political prisoners in the Zionist matrix. The political consequences are so enormous that

“Online patrolling by the government is also happening in the U.S., particularly from the CIA and its infamous In-Q-Tel program. At a 2012 summit, former CIA director David Petraeus essentially admitted that the CIA has a covert online presence that it uses not only for data mining purposes but also to infiltrate online conversations for the purpose of protecting ‘national security’ interests.

“Such interests, it turns out, include disrupting conversations that discuss topics like 9/11 truth, for instance, or U.S. involvement in giving weapons to Syrian rebels.

“According to Occupy Corporatism, the [NSA]… has devised a training program that literally scouts out hackers from American colleges and universities and recruits them to work for the government.

“Among the many duties sought from those enrolled in the National Centers of Academic Excellence in the Cyber Operations Program are ‘collection, exploitation, and response’ activities to take place in the online environment.

“These ‘cyber operators’ are trained to become an elite team of ‘computer geniuses’ that are experts in computer hacking, digital communications, cyber intelligence — for the purpose of spying on Americans, as well as conducting interactive digital psy-ops with users of the internet,’ explains Occupy Corporatism about the program.”[21]

PUTIN: AN ALLY IN THE POLITICAL WAR

Vladimir Putin

Putin continues to challenge the Zionist matrix by saying that Israel’s nuclear warheads make foreign policy very difficult,[22] particularly when Israel applies different standards. Victor Gilinsky, former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, have recently raised the same issue.[23]

Israel continues to force countries in the Middle East to dismantle their nuclear programs, but Israel is not even willing to let the international community take a look at their warheads—and they have hundreds of them![24]

Countries in the Western world have recently again voted against the proposal that Israel should join other nations such as Iran in signing the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.[25] Israeli Defense Minister Danny Dannon has already gone on record saying that “Israel should annul the Oslo records.”[26]

This is a slick way to absolve any responsibility. If they are out, then no country can hold them accountable. No country can ask them to play by the same rule.

What’s even more interesting is that Jewish organizations abide by the same double standards in America.

For example, Jewish lawyer Bob Wieckowski is making the ridiculous argument that the state of California should allow non-U.S. citizens to serve on California juries![27]

Bob Wieckowski

At the same time, in Upper Nazareth, which has about 50,000 people of various origins, including a small minority of Arabs and Christians, Mayor Shimon Gafsou does not even want a mosque or a church to be built there. Gafsou defends his position by saying,

“95 percent of the Jewish mayors think the same thing. They’re just afraid to say so out loud.”[28]

He continues, “This is a Jewish city, now and forever.”[29] Jewish police such as the ADL and AJC complain about neo-Nazis, but they will never complain about this form of Bolshevism.[30]

Let us turn this double standard to the Middle East. For example, Assad has already sent information to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about his chemical weapons;[31]Assad has even agreed that the international community is welcome to investigate his chemical weapons sites.[32] But the Israeli regime has yet to agree that it will even allow such an investigation about its own nuclear warheads.

Moreover, it was the Israeli regime that provided the so-called evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons.[33] If the West follows logical inference consistently, the West would be attacking the Syrian rebels/terrorists, not Assad, for hundreds upon hundreds of the rebels are consistently pledging their allegiance to al Qaeda almost weekly.[34]

Here is the rub: the U.S. government knew that al Qaeda used chemical weapons![35]

If Western politicians would consistently draw rational conclusions, they would discover that the Israeli regime is not an ally as they thought it was. For example, just a few days ago,

You did not die in vain, Rachel

“Israeli soldiers seized on Friday a truck full of tents and emergency aid that European diplomats had been trying to deliver to Palestinians whose homes were demolished…

“Soldiers were reportedly throwing sound grenades at a group of diplomats, aid workers and locals in the West Bank, and pulling a French diplomat out of the truck before driving away with its contents.”

Those diplomats were from France, Britain, Spain, Ireland, Australia, and the European Union’s political office. Marion Castaing, one of the diplomats, complained:

“They dragged me out of the truck and forced me to the ground with no regard for my diplomatic immunity. This is how international law is being respected here.”[36]

The diplomats were visiting a place where the Israeli army “demolished” the homes of the local people and a kindergarten school.

“Despite losing their property, the inhabitants have refused to leave the land, where, they say, their families have lived for generations along with their flocks of sheep.

“Israeli soldiers stopped the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delivering emergency aid on Tuesday and on Wednesday IRCS staff managed to put up some tents but the army forced them to take the shelters down.”[37]

ROUHANI VS. NETANYAHU

Hasan Rouhani

A few days ago, President Hasan Rouhani declares that international politics should not be “a zero-sum game but a multi-dimensional arena where cooperation and competition often occur simultaneously. Gone is the age of blood feuds.”[38]Rouhani continues to put the political debate on a rational ground this way:

“We must pay attention to the complexities of the issues at hand to solve them. Enter my definition of constructive engagement. In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is — or should be — counterintuitive to pursue one’s interests without considering the interests of others.

“A constructive approach to diplomacy doesn’t mean relinquishing one’s rights. It means engaging with one’s counterparts, on the basis of equal footing and mutual respect, to address shared concerns and achieve shared objectives. In other words, win-win outcomes are not just favorable but also achievable. A zero-sum, Cold War mentality leads to everyone’s loss.”[39]

A rational person is within his own right to give Rohani the benefit of a doubt. At the same time, it is not logical to completely dismiss him and say he is just lying. Why not taking into consideration his proposal here?

So far, Rouhani has been arguing within the parameters of logical inferences, and he has demonstrated that his views here are consistent with what the West represents. Paul R. Pillar declares Rouhani’s feet are firmly planted in rational analysis.[40]

“Sadly, unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches. Security is pursued at the expense of the insecurity of others, with disastrous consequences.

“More than a decade and two wars after 9/11, al-Qaeda and other militant extremists continue to wreak havoc. Syria, a jewel of civilization, has become the scene of heartbreaking violence, including chemical weapons attacks, which we strongly condemn.

“In Iraq, 10 years after the American-led invasion, dozens still lose their lives to violence every day. Afghanistan endures similar, endemic bloodshed.

“The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism. I say all because nobody is immune to extremist-fueled violence, even though it might rage thousands of miles away. Americans woke up to this reality 12 years ago.”[41]

King Bibi

How does Netanyahu and respond to Rouhani’s proposal? You guessed it:

“One should not be taken in by Rouhani’s deceptive words. The same Rouhani boasted in the past how he deceived the international community with nuclear talks, even as Iran was continuing with its nuclear program.”[42]

The same regime went on to say that there is no time left for negotiations with Iran.[43] The Obama administration was surely listening to their Israeli boss. They later declared that Rouhani’s proposals are “insufficient”[44]without even telling us why it was so.

Stephen J. Hardley, former national security adviser during the Bush administration, came to similar conclusions. Hardley adds:

“Every American committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should urge Congress to grant President Obama authority to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria.”[45]

If the West does not have any faith Rouhani, at least Siamak Moreh Dedgh, “who represents Iran’s Jewish community and holds a reserved seat in the Iranian parliament”[46] and who also happens to be an anti-Zionist, trusts him.

THE ZIONIST BURDEN

Rouhani is absolutely correct. The Israeli regime is pursuing its so-called security at the expense of the entire Western culture, at the expense of U.S. poverty and economic havoc in Europe. The regime has even asked more irrational demands, such as asking for more $3 billion every year.[47]

More importantly, the Zionist regime has placed a heavy burden on the West. As Bob Dreyfuss and Nick Turse of the Nation themselves write:

“When an American soldier dies in Afghanistan, his death is not anonymous. The tragedy of that loss is mourned, and his life is remembered and celebrated. In many cases, the death is covered prominently in local and state media, often for several days.

“The Pentagon dutifully records the loss, medals are delivered, a ceremonial flag is presented to survivors, and the Defense Department pays the soldier’s family $100,000 in compensation, plus back pay, insurance, housing allowances and more.

“But when an Afghan dies in the war—especially an Afghan civilian—her death is rarely noticed by the outside world. Often, it’s not even recorded by Afghan hospitals or morgues. Asked whether his country keeps records of civilian casualties, Said Jawad, the former Afghan ambassador to the United States, sighs.

“In Afghanistan, you know, we don’t even have birth certificates,” he says. “Do you know we don’t even have a list of Afghan soldiers and police, members of the security forces, who are killed?”[48]

Inconsistencies and double standards such as this have always create more anger and terrorist cells.[49]

PUTIN SEEMS TO BE A VISIONARY

Putin, using his intellectual prowess, in several occasions scorns and laughs at the West’s double standards—or shall we say the Zionist version of the West. For example, he declares at a recent gathering of several academics,

“Berlusconi is on trial now because he lives with women, but if he were a homosexual, they wouldn’t lay a finger on him.”[50]

Similar and blatant contradictions are rampant within our own political categories. For example, the Obama administration has been supporting the Syrian terrorists since last year, and both Kerry and McCain have been forcing the U.S. to support the same terrorist groups. Here’s the rub:

“An Army veteran accused of fighting alongside an al-Qaida-affiliated group of Syrian rebels has been released from jail following a secret plea deal. Eric Harroun, 31, of Phoenix, had been charged with providing material support to a terrorist group and faced up to life in prison.

“But under a plea agreement entered Thursday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Harroun pleaded guilty to an obscure law regulating export of munitions. He was sentenced to time served. He had been jailed since returning to the U.S. in March.”[51]

Why in the world did he get arrested in the first place? And if he should spend some time in jail, what about John Kerry, Barack Obama, William Kristol, Jonathan S. Tobin, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Stephen Bryen, Robert Kagan, Frederick Kagan, David Wurmser, Dov Zakheim, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, to name just a few?

Putin also makes it clear that sexuality is a private matter and has traditionally been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. Does that exclude people who want to express themselves as gays and lesbians in their private lives?

No, says Putin.[52] Putin cogently argues, “Any minority deserves respect for its distinctive identity, but the rights of the majority must not be questioned. “What can be a better indication of a moral crisis in human society than its loss of the ability for self-reproduction?”[53]

Putin, unlike the Zionist regime, which is theologically and essentially Masonic, does not allow gay propaganda to parade in front of children and society in order to corrupt the moral order.

According to Putin, people are welcome to perform whatever sexual acts they choose in their private lives, but they are not free to simulate any kind of sexual acts in public as a form of subversion.

Putin implicitly argues that gays and lesbians are not free to force the government to adopt their private lives, which in the end will amount to chaos.

More importantly, from a biological perspective, “same-sex marriages do not produce children,” says Putin. In other words, if Europe is to survive the next one hundred years, Europe has to go back to the traditional definition of marriage, which is consistent with the moral order.

“We are dying out,” says Putin. “Europeans are dying out.”[54] How does the average Russian respond to Putin’s solution? More than half of the population agrees with him.[55]

LIBERATE THE JEWISH BOY’S LIBIDO!

Pope Francis

Yet while Putin was making rational arguments for the traditional definition of marriage, Pope Francis came out and declared that the Church is “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage, and contraception.[56] He arbitrarily and quickly separates “moral doctrines” and “serving the poor and marginalized” as if both are contrary to one another. He declares,

“It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

“We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”[57]

I personally would like to know what that new balance is, since in the Gospel Christ himself declares, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).

Moreover, I would like Pope Francis to expand on what he means by “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

Virtually every serious person knows that there is indeed a problem with priests molesting children, that Europe’s population is in decline, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues?

As we shall see, Pope Francis, who should be articulating the Church’s traditional teachings on marriage, seems to be indirectly infected by Wilhelm Reich’s sexual ideology.

As John Paul VI articulated in the Encyclical Letter,

“Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design.

Wilhelm Reich

“As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

“This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment….

“Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.”[58]

Instead of articulating these principles to the world, Pope Francis turns around and embraces what Wilhelm Reich was propounding in the 1930s and all the way to the 1950s.

First, Reich, who has been christened one of the most influential intellectuals in the history of psychiatry, rejected the moral order. For him, rejecting Christianity was the first step in deconstructing sexual restraints. He states in the Sexual Revolution:

“The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations, or simply on tradition…

“We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality!”[59]

Biographer Myron R. Sharaf notes that “Reich was impressed with the failure of not only Marxism but of other revolutionary ideas such as Christianity.”

Abraham Maslow

Accordingly, Reich stirred up sexual revolution wherever he could, moving from one country to another.

“As a Communist in Germany, Reich was expelled from the party for his writings on sexual permissiveness and ‘counterrevolutionary’ thinking…In Denmark the attack on him by orthodox psychiatrists in 1933 hastened his departure for Sweden, but the hostility he encountered there led him in 1934 to Norway.

“In 1939, after two years of adverse publicity in the Norwegian press, he left for the United States, where he resumed his psychiatric practice in New York, trained other psychiatrists, and lectured at the New School for Social Research.”[60]

Reich had to flee Germany right after the rise of Hitler in 1933 because he was promoting sexual revolution among the youth, particularly with his book The Sexual Struggle of Youth.[61]

Taking refuge in America, it was not long, however, before Reich’s “research” was found to be fraudulent in the United States as well, and he was later investigated by the Food and Drug Administration and sent to prison. After eight months, “he suffered a fatal heart attack” and died in 1957.[62]

Around the same time that Reich was promoting sexual revolution, a number of Jewish psychiatrists and novelists were doing the same thing in America.

Albert Ellis began to propagate the idea that “healthy adultery” could spice up marriages. Abraham Maslow argued that “group nudity could also be personally beneficial [and] that nudist camps or parks might be places where people can emerge from hiding behind their clothes and armor, and become self-accepting, revealing, and honest.”[63]

And within a few years, popular Jewish novelist Phillip Roth would contribute to the sexual revolution through fiction, peppering his writing with psychology by saying things like, “Put the id back in the yid! Liberate this nice Jewish boy’s libido, will you please? Raise the prices if you have too! I’ll pay anything!”[64]

Reich’s books, particularly The Sexual Revolution, “found a receptive audience among college students and activists who, through him, understood more clearly the connection between sex and politics.”[65]

In the 1920s and 1930s, Jewish professor Jay A. Gertzman declares in his study Bookleggers and Smuthounds, “Jews were prominent in the distribution of gallantiana, avant-garde sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials.”[66]

“Wilhelm Reich was the talk of the town. Reich had at that time a large and enthusiastic following, especially among young intellectuals and people whose sympathies were clearly on the left but who, like Reich himself, had become totally disenchanted with communism as it had developed in Russia…

“It was first and foremost Reich’s new therapy that seemed an exciting advance over the techniques of establishment psychiatry of the Freudian and other schools. There was also a widespread feeling that Reich had an original and penetrating insight into the troubles of the human race…

“For some years many of my friends and I regarded him as something akin to a messiah…I concede that Reich had no real competence as a physicist…At the same time I am quite convinced that the orgone theory cannot be complete nonsense. For a number of years, largely out of curiosity, I sat in an orgone accumulator once a day.”[67]

WHILHELM REICH TAUGHT PRIESTS HOW TO BE TITILLATED

What is interesting to our study here is that since Reich viewed the Church as the arch-enemy of his sexual revolution, he had to find a way to titillate priests and nuns so that they could succumb to his sexual virus.

Reich, who frequented whorehouses as a form of experimentation,[68] tried unsuccessfully to persuade people to become atheists during his stay in Vienna. Reich found his eureka moment when he discovered that masturbation could be used as a form of weapon to destroy the convictions of priests and nuns about sexuality.

In other words, when priests and nuns start to masturbate, they will inexorably be drawn to the conclusion that God, to borrow Richard Dawkins’s title, is simply a delusion. Reich came to this conclusion not because he was simply a theoretician but because he had put his sexual ideology to the test, particularly his experience with a communist girl. Reich declared in his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism:

“The compulsion to pray disappeared when she was made aware of the origin of her fear; this awareness made it possible for her to masturbate again without feelings of guilt. As improbable as this incident may appear, it is pregnant with meaning for sex-economy. It shows how the mystical contagion of our youth could be prevented.

“We do not discuss the existence or nonexistence of God—we merely eliminate the sexual repressions and dissolve the infantile ties to the parents.

“The inescapable conclusion of all this, is that a clear sexual consciousness and a natural regulation of sexual life must foredoom every form of mysticism; that, in other words, natural sexuality is the arch enemy of mystical religion.

“By carrying on an anti-sexual fight wherever it can, making it the core of its dogmas and putting it in the foreground of its mass propaganda, the church only attests to the correctness of this interpretation.”[69]

E. Michael Jones comments:

“What Reich discovered in the girl’s behavior was a fundamental truth of sexual politics, one discovered by the Catholic Church long ago. It can be formulated in either of two ways: either masturbation destroys your prayer life, or prayer destroys your ability to enjoy masturbation. The two forms of activity are psychically mutually exclusive.

“Anyone interested in changing the default settings of the culture would notice that the settings are binary as well: either/or. There are only two cultural options.

“Either the state fosters prayer, belief in God, the authority of the father as God’s representative, and the social order based on morals, or it fosters masturbation, which is to say, illicit sexual activity, which brings about an inability to pray, the ‘death’ of God, the loss of authority by the father, revolution, and—the evidence from the Russian Revolution which Reich ignored—social chaos.”[70]

Reich writes, “We do not discuss the existence or nonexistence of God, we merely eliminate the sexual repressions and dissolve the infantile ties to the parents.” Jones again comments: “The crucial political struggle, according to Reich, was over who controlled sexual mores because Reich understood, like Nietzsche and Euripides before him, that he who controls sex controls the state…

“Reich felt that sexual license would win out over self-control in every instance, and he probably felt that way based on his experiences, where self-control lost consistently.”[71]

Reich was a metaphysician of some sort. His sexual ideology has been found to be true time and again. Take for example John W. Loftus, a former Protestant Christian and pastor who quickly fell into pornography. Once the moral order is out of the equation, the non-existence of God eventually followed.[72]

Loftus is now an atheist fundamentalist, but he never mentions this pornography issue in any of his books largely because if his readers actually know one of the true reasons behind his atheism, his arguments would not reach as many people as he would like.

POPE FRANCIS AND THE JEWS

Pope Francis has recently declared that “we have rediscovered that the Jewish People are still for us the holy root that produced Jesus.”[73]

What serious Christian would ever doubt that Jesus was an ethnic Jew? Pope Francis knows very well that the Jewish question is not primarily an ethnic issue. As the Apostle Paul himself declares,

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Romans 2:28-29).

Moreover, Pope Francis seems to think that by saying “nice” things, he would get the favor of the Jews. If Pharisees were not convinced by Christ’s miracles but sought to kill him, what makes Pope Francis think that he will gain the favor of the rabbis by giving them a false sense of security? Pope Francis also knows that Sicut Judaeis non is an essential doctrine of the Church, which states in part:

“[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints or Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the shield of Our protection.

“For We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny.

“Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly.

“Too, no Christian ought to presume…to injure their persons, or with violence to take their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit.

“Besides, in the celebration of their own festivities, no one ought disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform. …

“We decree… that no one ought to dare mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried. If anyone, however, shall attempt, the tenor of this degree once known, to go against it…let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction.”[74]

The second principle that flows from Sicut Judaeisnon is that Jews—and here I am arguing on a theological ground—are spiritually blind and therefore will always seek to subvert the moral order.

Since they reject Christ, who is viewed by Christians as the fountainhead of knowledge, order, reason, and beauty, they will always attack any Christian culture. In that instance, Jewish revolutionaries will always implicitly attack Western culture at its eventual roots.

We shall see this in the writings of Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and a host of others. This is why the Church has always kept an eye on “the Jews” because they are theologically the enemies of all mankind (1 Thessalonians 2:15). We shall expand on this more vigorously in the next article.

Stew Webb Radio Network

Stew Webb 32 Years a Federal Whistleblower
Stew Webb served in the United States Marine Corps and was Honorable Discharge. Stew was a General Contractor-Home Builder until 3 car crashes in one year and is now disabled. Stew turned Federal Whistleblower-Activist of 31 years and has been a guest on over 3,000 Radio and TV Programs since September 18, 1991 and now has his own Radio and TV Network http://www.stewwebbradionetwork.com Stew was responsible for the Congressional Investigations and hearings that lead to the Appointment of Independent Prosecutor Arlin Adams in the 1989 HUD Hearings, the Silverado Savings and Loan Hearings, the Denver International Airport Frauds hearings, the MDC Holdings, Inc. (MDC-NYSE) Illegal Political Campaign Money Laundering Colorado’s biggest case aka Keating 5 hearings and the information provided that lead to the 2008 Illegal Bank Bailout.
Stew was held as a Political Prisoner from 1992-1993 to silence his exposure by Leonard Millman his former in law with illegal charges of threatening harassing telephone calls charges which were dismissed with prejudice. Leonard Millman, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Larry Mizel, Phil Winn, Norman Brownstein, John McCain and Mitt Romney to name a few are all partners in what is known as the Bush-Millman-Clinton Organized Crime Syndicate. Leonard Millman (Deceased 2004) was member of the "Illuminati Council of 13".Your browser does not support the audio element.
You can Mute the Audio

Contributions are much appreciated

The below picture of the attempted murder of Stew Webb October 25, 2010 by two of Hillary Clinton's Assassins. There were two more crashed and attempts one year later.
Contributions are much appreciated Thank You.-- Stew Webb

Hillary Clinton above Barking Like A Female Dog now Spot Dog wants to have hot sex with Hildabeast and HikdaDikes Lesbo Lover Huma Abedine we told the Spot dog his private part will fall off because HildaBeast is a Walking STD
Hillary Clinton Child Rapist
Hillary's America The Movie

Buggles - Video killed the radio star

Fair Use Notice
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.